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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 was filed before the mailing of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 were rejected in the Final Office action mailed on 04/15/2026. Applicant’s amended claimset, received on 06/10/2026, amended Claims 1 and 23-24. Herein this Non-Final Office Action, Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit to provisional application # 63/340163 filed on 05/10/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/10/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-5 and 7-24, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Although each of the features taken individually, recite an abstract idea merely applied using a computer as a tool in its conventional way, each of the independent claims, taken as a whole, provide significantly more, and therefore recite patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the combination of: (1) the combined listing search algorithm and creation of the combined listing, (2) display of two regions of a GUI, (3) the first region providing combined listings with individual listings in a ranked order, (4) the second region providing a map that indicates the locations of the combined listing in a way that demonstrates the distance between locations is beyond the radius/range of the displayed map, and (5) use of category selection after the initial search to provide additional information in the first region, provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer system, i.e. specific graphic user interface elements that are tied to the specific type of search algorithm performed. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “causing presentation, in a first region of a graphical user interface on the computing device of the searching end-user, of the combined listing together with one or more other listings of the plurality of listings that match the listing request in a ranked order, wherein the combined listing is positioned within a dedicated area of the first region relative to individual listings of the one or more other listings of the plurality of listings;” at the tenth paragraph.
Examiner notes that “the combined listing” is reference to the information defining the listing itself, e.g. “in response to determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses the minimum length of stay threshold, generating a combined listing comprising a first listing [and] a second listing . . .” at the fourth paragraph), not a visual or graphical representation of the listing. Thus, “wherein the combined listing is positioned within a dedicated area of the first region relative to individual listings of the one or more other listings of the plurality of listings” is interpreted as analogous to “wherein the presentation of the combined listing is positioned within a dedicated area of the first region relative to individual listings of the one or more other listings of the plurality of listings.”
Additionally, regarding the limitation of “wherein the combined listing is positioned within a dedicated area of the first region relative to individual listings of the one or more other listings of the plurality of listings,” (emphasis added), Examiner clarifies that this limitation is interpreted as that the presentation of the combined listing is within the “dedicated area” and the “individual listings” are outside of the dedicated area, and both presentation of “combined listing” and “individual listings” are “of the first region.”
Such interpretation of the limitation above is extended to similar and dependent limitations throughout the claimset, i.e. Claims 1-5 and 7-24.
For the clarity of record, the scope of Claim 2, stating “wherein the combined listing is generated in response to determining that the quantity of individual listings in the set of individual listings fails to satisfy a minimum available inventory threshold and in response to determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses the minimum length of stay threshold” is analogous to “wherein the combined listing is generated in response to determining that the quantity of individual listings in the set of individual listings fails to satisfy a minimum available inventory threshold and determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses the minimum length of stay threshold” (i.e. Claim 2 limits the triggering of generating the combined list to the satisfaction of both (1) the quantity of individual listings failing to satisfy a threshold and (2) the multiple-day length of stay parameter transgressing the minimum length of stay threshold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “in response to determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses the minimum length of stay threshold, generating a combined listing comprising a first listing [and] a second listing . . . , by performing operations comprising: . . .causing presentation, in a first region of a graphical user interface on the computing device of the searching end-user, of the combined listing together with one or more other listings of the plurality of listings that match the listing request in a ranked order, wherein the combined listing is positioned within a dedicated area of the first region relative to individual listings of the one or more other listings of the plurality of listings;” at the fourth and tenth paragraphs, and “detecting selection of a first category of listings currently being presented on the computing device; in response to detecting selection of the first category, generating a graphical representation of the combined listing to visually identify each destination in the combined listing related to the selection of the first category; causing display, in the first region of the graphical user interface, of the graphical representation of the combined listing visually identifying at least a first listing destination and a second listing destination in the combined listing that are related to the selection of the first category;” (emphasis added) at the twelfth through fourteenth paragraphs.
Regarding the scope of the limitations above, the first limitation, in essence, automatically displays “the combined listing” and “other listings.” See Specification ¶101. The second limitation, as discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, automatically upon selection of a category of the listings that are currently displayed, displays a generated graphic of “the combined listing” that is related to the selection of the first category. Thus, the scope of the claim includes, in sequential order, “currently” displaying “the combined listing” resulting from a search request, detecting the selection of the category of the displayed “combined listing,” then generating (and subsequently displaying) a graphical representation of “the combined listing.”
Fig. 3 and Specification ¶99 shows “user interface 300.” Specification ¶100 states “Upon submitting the query (e.g., via selection of the search button 320, or automatically upon selecting the combined listings element 313 (split stays option) or dates drop-down element 317), the listings are displayed in the listings results area 305. . . In some examples, the user interface 300 includes a set of combined listings 323 together with individual listings displayed in the results area 305. The combined listings 323 can be positioned within the display in a dedicated area, on top of the individual listings, between two individual listings, and/or underneath the individual listings. In some examples, the combined listings 323 are provided in response to receiving input that selects the combined listings clement 313. In some examples, the combined listings 323 are presented automatically without receiving input that selects the combined listings element 313.” Thus, Specification ¶100 provides support for the first limitation, e.g. automatic display of the combined listing with the other listings.
Specification ¶101 states “In some examples, the combined listings 323 are displayed in different slots or portions of the display relative to other individual listings on the basis of the type of client device being used to access the system. For example, on a mobile device, the combined listings 323 can be placed in slots 3, 6, 9, and 12 on the first page, and on a desktop computer, the same combined listings 323 may be presented in slots 5, 9, 14 and 20 for better visual balance. As referred to herein, the term "slots" means an area of a display in which a category is presented.” (Emphasis added). Specification ¶103 states “In some examples, the combined listings 323 presentation can vary based on the type of category selected. For example, if a national parks category is selected, the combined listings 323 can include two different national park points of interest that are at least two hours drive apart and a maximum of 10 hours drive apart. . . . The combined listings 323 graphical representation can visually identify the two surfing destinations that form part of the same combined listing using the region/city name.” (Emphasis added). Thus, Specification ¶101 shows the correlations between the display area (e.g. the displayed combined listing) defined as a “slot” and “a category,” and Specification ¶103 shows that a certain category can be selected, and the combined listing of that category are then displayed.
Fig. 5 and Specification ¶108 shows “In some examples, the computing device displaying the user interface 500 ranks the listing criterion 510 according to various parameters. Specifically, the computing device can retrieve a plurality of listing categories, rank the categories, and present the categories in respective category slots 512 (e.g., slot 0, slot 1, slot 2, slot 3, and so forth) of the user interface 500. . . In such cases, the cabins category can be presented in slot 0 of the category slots 512 and the beaches category can be displayed in slot 3 or not at all. In response to the user selecting the cabins category from slot 0, a set of listings associated with the cabins category are presented according to their respective ranks (discussed above).” (Emphasis added).
However, the disclosure does not show ownership of the first limitation and the second limitation together, i.e. the selection of the category of the “currently” displayed combined listing, results in the generation and display of a graphical element representing the destinations of the combined listing. Because of the automatic (i.e. “in response to”) and specific nature of the claimed limitations, and the lack of disclosure support for this claimed limitation, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-5 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) via dependency and recitation of similar limitations to the rejected limitations of Claim 1 discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claim 1 recites “detecting selection of a first category of listings currently being presented on the computing device” at the twelfth paragraph. It is unclear as to whether the limitation of “currently being presented” limits (1) the “listings,” or (2) the “first category,” which provides explanatory language that the “first category” is a category of listings, i.e. no reference to the defined “listings” in the claim. Additionally, if the limitation is interpreted as recited “detecting selection of a first category,” wherein the first category is “of listings currently being presented,” i.e. interpretation “(1),” it is further unclear as to whether the “listing current being presented” is referencing (1a) all or a (1b) subset of listings currently presented, or (2) the listings presented in the previous limitation, i.e. “causing presentation, . . . , of the combined listing together with one or more other listings . . .”of the tenth paragraph. Because the scope of this limitation has multiple reasonable interpretations, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For Examining purposes herein, the “listings currently being presented” is interpreted as referencing any listings currently being presented, i.e. no reference to the defined “listings” throughout the claim, and the “first category” may include all or a subset of those “listings” that are “currently being presented.”
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “presenting an indicator that starts at an icon associated with the first listing destination and extends in a direction of a location of the second listing destination up to an edge of the map that is presented.” (Emphasis added) at the end of the claim. It is unclear as to whether the “up” in this limitation is intended to be an absolute direction (e.g. the map will rotate such that the indicator extends from the icon vertically to the top edge of the map in the direction of the second listing) or a relative direction (e.g. “up” is the direction which the indicator extends, and therefore the limitation merely limits the indicator to extending from the icon to whichever map edge is in the direction of the second listing). Because the scope of the limitation is unclear, the claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In accordance with Specification ¶105, “up” of this limitation is interpreted as a relative direction, i.e. “presenting an indicator that starts at an icon associated with the first listing destination, extends in a direction of a location of the second listing destination, and terminates at an edge of the map that is presented.”
Claims 2-5 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) via dependency and recitation of similar limitations to the rejected limitations of Claim 1 discussed above.
Reasons for No Art Rejection
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are not rejected over the prior art of record, as discussed in the previous office action.
The Closest prior art of record is US-20180330283-A1 (“Patel”), US-20120053968-A1 (“Debarge”), US-20100293011-A1 (“Lebreton”), US-20090307020-A1 (“Viale”),
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no rejection over the prior art:
Patel discloses the generation of “combined” (i.e. split-stay) listings by splitting the initial accommodations query into sub-queries which satisfy the accommodation need for a portion of the requested accommodation period in accordance with certain criteria (Fig. 5 and ¶68. ¶¶9-13 shows the use of a “split-point” that can be a minimum number of days or based on the days of the week.). The results of these sub-queries are then “paired” in accordance with split-stay criteria (Fig. 5 and ¶71). Fig. 5 and ¶¶53-57 shows an iterative process of executing sub-queries and pairing “legs” to create a combined listing based on “mixture query instructions 118.” The queries are applied to a local “’live’ pricing and availability database 120” or other external sources (Fig. 1 and ¶52). Patel does not teach flexibility in the search or sub-search criteria. Patel does not teach the specific algorithms used to execute the search (i.e. grouping) in the database.
Debarge includes an “inventory management database 103” configured to store accommodation availability data in a certain format that enables non-continuous (i.e. split-stay) hotel bookings (¶¶39-46 shows the booking of continuous and non-continuous stays.). Each room comprises the features of the room (e.g. queen bed, sea view, balcony), duplicate rooms comprise an “element,” the features of the rooms are grouped (i.e. each room may belong to multiple groups), and the groups are associated with a capacity (Fig. 3-6 and ¶¶29-37). However, each booking is a “floating booking,” meaning that a room type, not a particular physical room, is reserved upon completion of the booking process, then later a particular physical room is assigned (¶26). Thus, it is not the listing (i.e. particular room) that is displayed to (and booked by) the searcher, but an amalgam of room characteristics (i.e. elements as shown in Fig. 3-4) that are shown (Fig. 9 and ¶91 shows the booking process. Fig. 7-8 shows bookings.).
Lebreton teaches that the generation of the combined offers occurs when no single “whole” reservation satisfies the request (¶19). Lebreton shows a decision tree which, in response to a request, applies preferences and business rules to narrow the options of partial reservations that can be combined to satisfy the reservation request (Fig. 4 shows the decision tree. Fig. 3 shows the variety of availability between hotels. Fig. 5 shows combining hotels to create a reservation offer. ¶23 shows “The customer preferences may be entered as part of the request . . .”). These preferences can include anything, which could include some of the parameters in the instant claims, despite not being explicitly taught (¶24 shows “By way of example, the customer preferences may relate to price, hotel facilities, the requirement not to change hotels, and/or any combination of these or any other potential customer preferences.”). Also, Lebreton incorporates a degree of flexibility in each preference resulting in weighting of each preference which determines the order the preferences are applied in the decision tree (¶27 shows preferences include a degree of flexibility. ¶25 shows the first preference applied is the preference of greatest importance. ¶23 shows a continuum of weighted preferences). The application of preferences also incudes a sequential application of preferences, i.e. applying primary preferences first to create a first subset of listings, and then further narrowing that subset with secondary preferences (Fig. 4, ¶32, and ¶34 show applying preferences in the decision tree. ¶30 show inclusion of “[s]ubsequent analyses . . . .based on the third, fourth and fifth preferences” with no limit to the number of preferences.). Because of the broad definition of a preference, Lebreton could include: a minimum duration of stay at each hotel, destination categories, degree of flexibility of dates, refining the groups based on user profile, ect., applied in a certain sequence, similar to the limitations of the recited claims. However, Lebreton does not explicitly teach the specific sequence recited in the claims.
Viale shows an inventory management of hotel rooms that groups the availability of certain criterion in the inventory database, i.e. instead of storing a list of individual rooms, each having a value for a certain feature variable, the database includes groups of certain values of certain features, e.g. instead of Rooms A-C being a king bed and non-smoking, Room D being queen bed and non-smoking, and Rooms E-F being queen bed and smoking, the database stores that the group of king beds includes 3, group of queen beds includes 3, group of smoking includes 2, and ect. (Fig. 1-2 and 11a-11b and ¶37). Fig. 1-2 and ¶43 shows that the groups include quantity of available rooms (i.e. groups of availability). Fig. 7-8 and ¶¶66-68 shows that groups can be used to provide multi-day bookings when each room individually would not be available for the multi-day booking. Thus, Viale is similar to the instant claims. Primarily, Viale inventory database structure is intended to exist independent to (i.e. not in response to) receiving a reservation request (¶79). Specifically, Viale only merely mention the use of “specific request” (i.e. individual listing) and “indefinite request” (i.e. combined listing). Thus, the groupings exist independent of the request and are not generated in response to the creation of the combined list. This distinction is further exemplified at the completion of the reservation, such that individual rooms are not reserved, but a group of features are reserved (¶43 and Fig. 10), e.g. Viale reserves 7 nights of king bed and non-smoking, unlike the instant claims which would reserve 3 nights in Room A, which is king bed and non-smoking, and 4 nights in Room B, which is King bed and non-smoking.
Generally, the closest prior art related to independent Claim 1 teaches (1) sequentially narrowing listings to be combined (Patel and Lebreton) and (2) grouping listing but not in the specific manner claimed (Debarge and Viale).
With respect to Claim 1, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements that include “generating a combined listing . . . by performing operations comprising: identifying a subset of individual listings of the plurality of listings that satisfies one or more search criteria of the listing request independent of the multiple-day length of stay parameter; for each individual listing in the subset, generating a plurality of groups of stays on which the individual listing is available, each group of stays being associated with availability of the individual listing during different portions of the multiple-day length of stay parameter; refining the plurality of groups using an aggregator based on a user profile of the searching end-user; determining that a first combination of the portion of availability of a first refined group of a first individual listing in the subset with the portion of availability of a second refined group of a second individual listing matches the multiple-day length of stay parameter; and in response to determining that the first combination matches the multiple-day length of stay parameter, forming the combined listing based on the first refined group of the first individual listing and the second refined group of the second individual listing.” In essence, Claim 1 performs a series of operations as part of the generating the combined listing: first identifies listings that satisfy a search criteria independent of the requested length of stay, creating a certain subset, second, for each identified listing in the subset, generating a plurality of groups of stays where each group is associated with availability during different portions of the requested length of stay, third, refining the groups based on user profile of the searcher, which creates refined groups, and fourth and finally, combining portions of availability of a first and second group, in accordance with the requested length of stay, to create the combined listing.
Because Claim 1 recites the limitation, “in response to determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses the minimum length of stay threshold, generating a combined listing,” the limitations of Claim 1 that further limit the operations comprising “generating a combined listing” would need to be found in the same reference that teaches the limitation of “generating a combined listing” in order to not break the logical chain of the limitation. None of prior art teaches the use of satisfying a minimum length of stay threshold triggering the generation of a combined listing comprising of first creating a subset of groupings independent of the requested length of stay, then refining those groupings, and finally applying the requested length of stay to create the combined listing.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-22 depend on Claim 1, and therefore also receive no art rejection via dependency.
Independent Claims 23-24 recite features and limitations substantially similar to independent Claim 1, and therefore also receive no art rejection under similar justification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
KR-20150116385-A (“Imam”) shows a map display showing a line between destinations used in online travel booking.
“Wanderlog: The Travel Planning App You’ve Been Waiting For” (“The Partying Traveler” 01/27/2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220127075052/https://thepartyingtraveler.com/2020/11/04/wanderlog-travel-planning-app-youve-been-waiting-for/) shows multi-location travel itinerary map including lines between locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights