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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the claim objections have not been addressed. Therefore, Examiner has maintained the claim objection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims have been amended to address the technical problem of repeated itinerary searches, bookings ad cancellations across distributed booking systems resulting in substantial and unnecessary consumption of computing resources. Applicant argues that the claims now determine whether a machine-computed weighted measure falls below a predefined threshold, in which case a null machine response is generated, terminating processing so that the method may begin anew and therefore mitigates the technical problems outlined in the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such generating a travel query to schedule a collaborative itinerary between multiple users. (See specification, Par. 0003, 0009, and 0051, The intersection score can be further based on a quantitative opportunity metric representing a value of co-locating individuals). Furthermore, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. (See MPEP2106.04(a)(2)) Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements (computer elements, optimization engine, online booking engine, output device, natural language processing, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface 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. Here, the alleged improvement is to the business process of scheduling and efficient colocation instead of an improvement to a technology or technical field
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11, that the amendments align with DDR holdings. Applicant argues that similarly here, instead of the distributed computing environment operating in its normal, expected manner by repeatedly invocation of third-party travel booking engines to search for and generate itinerary records in response to available collaborator and location data, the claimed system conditionally controls downstream system operations by generating a null machine response when a machine-computed threshold is not met, and initiating notification, passenger name record modification or creation, or calendar entry updates only when the threshold is satisfied.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The DDR case was considered eligible because the claims recite a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the internet. As a result, the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Here, as mentioned above, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. They do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 07/10/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if amended or re-written to overcome the rejections in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, in the 5th limitation recite at least candidate one itinerary record. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this will be interpreted as at least one candidate itinerary record.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1-10 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 11-20 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
receive a primary account identifier and a target location identifier;
generate a collaborator query on at least one collaboration platform for collaborator account identifiers matching the primary account identifier;
receive at least one collaborator account identifier from the at least one collaboration platform having a collaborator location identifier matching the target location identifier;
generate a travel query … to retrieve at least one candidate travel itinerary record that connects an origin location identifier of either the primary account identifier or the collaborator account identifier with the target location identifier;
determine an intersection score for the at least one collaborator account identifier based on the at least one candidate itinerary record;
wherein the intersection score is a weighted measure determined by:
(i) an overlap in schedule availability between the primary user and the collaborator user, the overlap being computed by comparing … calendar entries maintained on the collaboration platform and expressed as a quantified time-window contribution to the weighted measure;
(ii) a catchment area defined by a maximum geographic distance or travel time from the target location, the itinerary records within the catchment area being assigned a positive weighting and the itinerary records outside the catchment area being assigned a reduced or null weighting in the weighted measure;
(iii) at least one of collaboration metrics and connection metrics derived from the at least one collaboration platform, the connection metrics being retrieved as stored quantitative values including one or more of message counts, connection levels, or shared project records, and incorporated as numerical factors in the weighted measure; and
(iv) an urgency measure derived from analyzing prior communications …, the urgency measure being generated … to stored communication records and outputting a numerical urgency score contributing to the weighted measure; and,
if the weighted measure falls below a predefined threshold, generate a "null" response;
if the weighted measure exceeds the predefined threshold,
determine an itinerary record selection from the at least one candidate itinerary record; and,
control an output … using the itinerary record selection to provide at least one of:
(i) a notification in the collaboration platform indicating an in-person meeting;
(ii) a modification or creation … of a passenger name record (PNR) of a travel itinerary record corresponding to the candidate travel itinerary record;
(iii) a modification or creation of at least one calendar entry within the collaboration platform that physically co-locates the primary user and the collaborator user at the target location.
The limitations of Claim 11 recites:
receiving, …, a primary account identifier and a target location identifier;
generating, …, a collaborator query on at least one collaboration platform for collaborator account identifiers matching the primary account identifier;
receiving, …, at least one collaborator account identifier from the at least one collaboration platform having a collaborator location identifier matching the target location identifier;
generating, …, a travel query … to retrieve at least one candidate travel itinerary record that connects an origin location identifier of either the primary account identifier or the collaborator account identifier with the target location identifier;
determining, …, an intersection score for the at least one collaborator account identifier based on the at least one candidate itinerary record; wherein the intersection score is a weighted measure determined by:
(i) an overlap in schedule availability between the primary user and the collaborator user, the overlap being computed by comparing … calendar entries maintained on the collaboration platform and expressed as a quantified time- window contribution to the weighted measure;
(ii) a catchment area defined by a maximum geographic distance or travel time from the target location, the itinerary records within the catchment area being assigned a positive weighting and the itinerary records outside the catchment area being assigned a reduced or null weighting in the weighted measure;
(iii) at least one of collaboration metrics and connection metrics derived from the at least one collaboration platform, the connection metrics being retrieved as stored quantitative values including one or more of message counts, connection levels, or shared project records, and incorporated as numerical factors in the weighted measure; and
(iv) an urgency measure derived from analyzing prior communications … the urgency measure being generated … to stored communication records and outputting a numerical urgency score contributing to the weighted measure;
if the weighted measure falls below a predefined threshold, generating a "null" response;
if the weighted measure exceeds the predefined threshold,
determining an itinerary record selection from the at least one candidate itinerary record; and,
controlling, …, an output … using the itinerary record selection to provide at least one of:
(i) a notification in the collaboration platform indicating an in- person meeting;
(ii) a modification or creation … of a passenger name record (PNR) of a travel itinerary record corresponding to the candidate travel itinerary record; and
(iii) a modification or creation of at least one calendar entry within the collaboration platform that co-locates the primary user and the collaborator user at the target location.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such generating a travel query to schedule a collaborative itinerary between multiple users. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A computing resource optimization engine comprising a processor and a memory for storing instructions executable on the processor;
the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory;
the instructions comprising:
at least one online booking engine
output device
natural language processing
electronic calendar entries
applying a machine-implemented linguistic model
Claim 11:
A method for computing resource implemented via a computer optimization engine comprising:
at least one online booking engine
output device
natural language processing
electronic calendar entries
applying a machine-implemented linguistic model
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 10, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
No additional elements
There are no further additional elements recited in dependent claims (apart from those already recited and analyzed above in the independent claims) that change the character of the limitations. Therefore, the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights