DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed September 03, 2025.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 15, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s remarks filed September 03, 2025 on p. 21-23 regarding the newly added features are persuasive. Further it would not have been obvious to combine the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended claims.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed September 03, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
A. The amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea
But this conclusion does not apply to amended claims 1, 10, and 19. For example, the amended claims recite the following additional operations that are not mathematical relationships/formulas:
a) identifying pertinent transit data from the aggregated itinerary information;
b) transmitting, via an application programming interface (API), the pertinent transit data to an external computing network to retrieve external data, wherein the API includes an external transit checker;
c) continuously monitoring, in real-time via the API, each of the at least one transit reservation based on the itinerary information and the retrieved external data; and
d) the identifying of the at least one future transit reservation is further based on an invocation of the API in conjunction with the recursively curated historical information and itinerary information.
These identifying, transmitting, and monitoring operations cannot be considered mathematical concepts.
Additionally, these claims do not recite commercial or legal interactions. Rather, the claims recite computer-based applications for training and implementing a machine learning model to analyze transit information. Additionally, no court case or example from the MPEP has been cited to establish that the features recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19 relate to a commercial or legal interaction. Thus, these arguments do not apply to amended claims 1, 10, and 19.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection below, the use of an API is a use of a tool for transmitting an monitoring transit data. The instant claims recite both a mathematical concept and a method of organizing human activity. A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
B. The amended independent claims are integrated into a practical application
The Office Action asserts that the claims are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A of its § 101 analysis because, in part, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and represent insignificant, extra-solution activities.
But this conclusion does not apply to amended claims 1, 10, and 19 since these claims have been amended to recite features at a much lower level of generality than the original claims and integrate the features into a practical application as follows:
i) generating a machine learning model;
ii) training the machine learning model, based on a cross-validation technique, a holdout technique, and a bootstrap technique in curating an artificially intelligent itinerary for a user based on the user's travel information, the machine learning model being trained to operate with a least squares error rate within a predetermined range;
iii) aggregating itinerary information for the user derived from the card activity data, and the transit transaction detail data for a plurality of user transactions, the itinerary information corresponding to at least one transit reservation;
iv) identifying pertinent transit data from the aggregated itinerary information;
v) transmitting, via an API, the pertinent transit data to an external computing network to retrieve external data, wherein the API includes an external transit checker;
vi) continuously monitoring, in real-time via the API, each of the at least one transit reservation based on the itinerary information and the retrieved external data;
vii) automatically retrieving, from a repository, historical information that specifically corresponds to the user when the at least one parameter satisfies the predetermined threshold;
viii) recursively curating, via the trained machine learning model, the historical information and the itinerary information specific to the user associated with a transit;
ix) automatically identifying, in real-time using the trained machine learning model in conjunction with the TRA, at least one future transit reservation based on the itinerary information that shares common characteristics with the historical information including a common destination, a common time duration for the transit, and a preferred seating location on the transit; and
x) the identifying of the at least one future transit reservation is further based on an invocation of the API in conjunction with the recursively curated historical information and itinerary information.
Applicant submits that no reasonable interpretation of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 would characterize these claims as reciting features at a high level of generality such that they represent insignificant, extra-solution activities.
Additionally, these newly claimed details are inextricably tied to and solve problems in current computer technology. Conventional systems are unable to identify and analyze information that pertains to trip interruptions, and thus are not feasible for managing itineraries during trip interruptions, as described in paragraphs [0003] of the instant specification. In contrast, these newly claimed computer-based features generate and train machine learning models and invoke APIs to continuously monitor variable data for identifying future transit options. Thus, these claimed features significantly enhance the ability of a computer-based system for facilitating itinerary management to provide alternative transit recommendations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the particularity of the claims, merely reciting claims that are a narrow application of the identified idea is not sufficient to recite patent eligible subject matter. See Electronic Communication v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“patent eligibility turns on the content of the claims, not merely on the number of words recited in the claims”); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way”).
The identified improvements of identifying and analyzing trip interruptions argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
As discussed in detail in the rejection below, the instant claims recital of machine learning and an API are merely the use of a computer as a tool for performing the identified abstract idea. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101."); Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings, 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (a GUI and API is a generic and conventional computer component).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
C. The amended independent claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea
The Office Action also rejects the claims under its § 101 Step 2B analysis. The Office asserts that the claims fail to recite significantly more than an abstract idea for similar reasons as those used in the step 2A analysis and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. But the claims have been amended to be allowable under § 101 Step 2A analysis, as discussed above. Therefore, the amended claims are not susceptible to this ground of rejection. As a result, the Office has not established that amended claims 1, 10, and 19 fail to recite significantly more than an abstract idea. For this additional reason, Applicant requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection below the claims doe not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea. As explained in the responses above and the rejection below, the instant claims are not eligible under the Step 2A analysis.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
D. Dependent Claims 6 and 15 have been amended to provide an additional ground for patentability under 101
Dependent claims 6 and 15 have been amended to provide additional features that further integrate the claimed features into a practical application and recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 6 and 15 now generally recite: invoking, via the machine learning model, the ETC to identify the at least one future transit reservation that matches any combination of user preference data, wherein the machine learning model includes a Markov Decision Process analysis reinforcement learning algorithm.
Applicant submits that no reasonable interpretation of dependent claims 6 and 15 would characterize these claims as reciting features at a high level of generality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dependent claims 6 and 15 have been identified as a part of the identified abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “pertinent transit data” in claim 1 line 17, claim 10 line 21, and claim 19 line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pertinent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specification [0075] discusses examples of pertinent transit data but does not provide the definition necessary to determine the scope of the claim term.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend upon claims 1, 10, or 19 and therefore inherit the above rejection of claims 1, 10, or 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 10-18 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 19-20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 19, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring an user’s itinerary, identifying future reservations, and providing future reservations, which is a mathematical concept and a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting training a machine learning model using specific mathematical techniques. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting identifying itinerary information and using that itinerary information to provide a future transit reservation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions) by reciting a user’s interaction with a reservation system by monitoring a user’s itinerary and reciting instructions for identifying and providing future reservations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The mathematical concept and method of organizing human activity of “monitoring an user’s itinerary, identifying future reservations, and providing future reservations,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: training a machine learning model using mathematical techniques, aggregating itinerary information, identifying pertinent transit data, monitoring transit reservations, determining whether a parameter meets a threshold, retrieving historical information, curating historical information, identifying a future transit reservation, and providing the identified future transit reservation. The mere nominal recitation of a processor; a memory; an external network; implementing a progressive reservation system; an application programming interface; a communication interface; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; a graphical user interface; and generating, training, and deploying a model does not take the claim of the mathematical concept or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 6-7 and 15-16, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: identifying a future transit reservation, determining a compatibility factor, scoring a future transit reservation, and ranking future transit reservations.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the additional elements: a processor; a memory; an external network; implementing a progressive reservation system; an application programming interface; a communication interface; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; a graphical user interface; and generating, assessing, and deploying a model. The processor, memory, external network, implementing a progressive reservation system, application programming interface, communication interface, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and graphical user interface limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The generating, assessing, and deploying a model limitations are mere instructions to use a model as a tool which is a form of mere instructions to apply the exception. The application programming interface step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering transit data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 3 and 12 recite monitoring transaction activities, retrieving transaction data, filtering transaction data, and extracting itinerary information which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering itinerary data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 8 and 17 recite generating a hyperlink, generating a notification with a hyperlink, and providing the notification which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 9 and 18 recite a machine learning model which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 9 and 18 recite a data model step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring and adjusting a travel itinerary in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing travel agent process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a processor, a memory, an external network, implementing a progressive reservation system, a communication interface, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a graphical user interface. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial), and navigating an interface (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0038]), a memory (Specification [0039]), an external network (Specification [0055]-[0056], [0058]), implementing a progressive reservation system (Specification [0096]-[0100]), an application programming interface (Specification [0075], [0097], [0103]), a communication interface (Specification [0045], [0051], [0053]), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Specification [0038], [0039]), a graphical user interface (Specification [0062], [0079], [0081], [0094], [0095]), generating a model (Specification [0091]), assessing a model (Specification [0090]), and deploying a model (Specification [0090]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a processor, a memory, an external network, implementing a progressive reservation system, an application programming interface, a communication interface, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a graphical user interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as mere use of a tool in its ordinary capacity by reciting generating a model, assessing a model, and deploying a model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a graphical user interface, and responding to a graphical user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims limit the field of use by reciting travel reservation field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 3, 8-9, 12, and 17-18, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 9 and 18, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a machine learning model (Specification [0088]) and a data model (Specification [0087]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 8-9 and 17-18 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting generating a hyperlink, generating a notification with a hyperlink, providing the notification, and a machine learning model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 3, 9, 12 and 18 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting monitoring transaction activities, retrieving transaction data, filtering transaction data, extracting itinerary information, and a data model. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11, 13-14, 18, and 20, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628