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 11/17/2025 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit to provisional application # 63/340163 filed on 05/10/2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 08/22/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, received on 11/17/2025, amended Claims 1-5 and 7-24. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-5 and 7-24, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 12-13, Applicant argues that “. . . the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. As explained in the application as filed at least at paragraphs 16-19, search queries for listings on a listing platform can consume a significant amount of computing resources, especially since listings have attributes that are highly dynamic.” Specification ¶16 discusses that the dynamic nature of listing attributes requires that listing attributes are “handled” at the time of the search, i.e. in response to each query. Additionally, Specification ¶¶16-17 discusses that the search process can consume a significant amount of computational resources. For instance, "the process of computing pricing and availability per listing can consume over 30% of search-serving CPU processing for regular queries (e.g., simple date range, finite price range, small geographic area)," which can drastically increase for more complex searches, such as those for multiple date ranges. Id. Further, Applicant cites to Specification ¶18, stating “a system ‘can use up the computational resources to find matching listings [that] fail to identify a sufficient number of candidate matches,’ which results in repetitive ‘revision of the search parameters [that] causes the systems to again consume a great deal of computational resources to find match results.’” Specification ¶3 further re-iterates the computational burden of complex searches of a large number of listings from a large number of users. Applicant argues that the specification provides a technical solution to the above technical problem, as Specification ¶19 “explains that the claims are directed to ‘generating a combined listing from the available listings and presenting the combined listing as one of the candidate search results [which] improves the diversity and variety of available listings for a given query.’ Id. At 19. ‘[B]y adding more variety to the results presented to a searching end user, the likelihood of the user completing a transaction and avoiding requesting additional searches to be performed is reduced.’ ld. This ‘reduces the amount of computational resources needed to be dedicated and consumed by a given searching end-user, which frees up such resources for other tasks and satisfying other search requests.’ Id.” Applicant concludes that “the claimed solution improves search systems by reducing or avoiding additional searches, which can significantly reduce resource consumption, as clearly explained in the application as filed.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a)I states “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a).II states “However, 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.” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that the specification and the claims recite an improvement to the business process of advertising, which is an ineligible improvement in the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05(a).II. Examiner concedes that the use of computational resources in executing a search could be a “technical problem” that could be improved upon with a “technical solution” (e.g. an improved search algorithm that achieves the exact same search results as conventional methods, but with reduced computational resource consumption due to improved functioning of a computer). However, Applicant’s purported invention does not provide a technical improvement, e.g. technical solution, to the issue of computational resource consumption. Examiner follows the court in Enfish in determining that the specification’s explanation as to “how” computational resource consumption is reduced fails to demonstrate an improvement in technology.
As cited by the applicant, Specification ¶19 shows that the advantages of the purported invention are that a customer receives a “better” advertisement, which improves which listings are presented to the potential customer by increasing the “likelihood” of the customer being satisfied with the offer presented. The Specification (¶19) continues that because the “better” advertisements “better” satisfies or persuades the customer’s commercial needs, the customer does not want to conduct additional searches consuming additional computational resources. The actualization of the advantages of Applicant’s purported invention hinges solely on the customer’s psychology and commercial interests. If, for example, customer culture were to shift such that despite seeing an “perfect” offer, the customer wants to be thorough and continue searching, the purported improvement to technology no longer exists or the asserted technical problem could be exacerbated by the increased diversity of the listings. Because the reduction in computational resources is dependent on customer satisfaction and behavior, i.e. a user choosing to use less computational resources based on their commercial interests, Examiner cannot find an improvement in technology. Instead, Applicant’s specification merely references an improvement in an abstract idea, i.e. commercial or legal interactions, which could result in a user wanting to use less computational resources. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the specification does not provide a patent eligible “technical explanation” under MPEP 2106.05(a).
On Pages 13-16, Applicant asserts that the technical improvement discussed in the specification is embodied in the claims, and therefore the claims are in condition for allowance. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that, as discussed above, the specification fails to provide the technical explanation necessary to determine that the claims provide a patent eligible improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
For the clarity of record, the scope of amended 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 § 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 1-5 and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Overview of Analysis
The subject matter eligibility analysis comprises: Step 1 (i.e. Does the claim fall within one of the four stator categories, e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?), Step 2A (Is the claim “directed to” a judicial exception, e.g. abstract idea, natural phenomena, or law of nature?), and Step 2B (i.e. Does the claim recite “additional elements” that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception?). MPEP 2106.III.
Step 2A is a two-prong analysis. MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A Prong-One first determines whether the claim merely “recites” (i.e. “sets forth” or “describes”) a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1. Then, Step 2A Prong-Two determines if the claim “recites” “additional elements” that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (e.g. if the recited additional elements do not “integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application,” then, Step 2A would conclude that the claim is “directed to” the recited judicial exception.). MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 and 7-22 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claim 23 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claim 24 recite a machine-readable storage device (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-5 and 7-24 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving, from a . . . searching end-user, a listing request for one or more of a plurality of listings posted . . . , the listing request specifying a multiple-day length of stay parameter;
determining that the multiple-day length of stay parameter of the listing request transgresses a minimum length of stay threshold;
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 of the plurality of listings associated with a first portion of the multiple-day length of stay parameter and a second listing of the plurality of listings associated with a second portion of the multiple-day length of stay parameter, 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;
causing presentation, [to] 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;
detecting selection of a first category of listings currently being presented [to the searching end-user];
determining that the first listing of the combined listing is associated with multiple categories, and has a first cover image associated with the first category of the multiple categories and a second cover image associated with a second category of the multiple categories; and
in response to detecting selection of the first category of listings currently being presented [to the searching end-user], selecting the first cover image instead of the second cover image, as a cover image for the first listing of the combined listing presented [to the searching end-user].
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) receiving a listing request specifying a length of stay, (2) determining that the length of stay is greater than a threshold, (3) based on the threshold transgression, generating a combination listing with a first and second portion, (4) combining listings by utilizing thresholds and grouped subsets of listings, (5) refining the groups based on a user profile, (6) presenting the combined listing with other listings, (7) detecting selection of a category of the listings presented to the user, (8) determining that a listing is associated with multiple categories, each category having a cover image, and (9) in response to detecting selection of a category, presenting the cover image associated with that category, all of which are managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. generating a list based on applying a threshold and user profile, ranking the order which information is presented, using categories and request information to determine which cover image is presented are “following rules or instructions”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. requesting, generating, grouping, refining, categorizing, and presenting listings and images are “marketing and sales activities” or “advertising”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “computing device” and “network site”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the MPEP provides several examples of claims involving the display of an image on an electronic device where the court considered the display of the image as part of the recited abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.B (“The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) . . . , comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, . . .”); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C (“The patentee [in Interval Licensing LLC] claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," . . .”) MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016).); and MPEP 2106.05(f) (“The court [in TLI Communications] stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) computing device and
(ii) network site.
The additional elements of (i) computing device (Fig. 1 and ¶23 shows “The client device 110 comprises, but is not limited to, a remote device, work station, computer, general purpose computer, Internet appliance, hand-held device, wireless device, portable device, wearable computer, cellular or mobile phone, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), smart phone, tablet, ultrabook, netbook, laptop, desktop, multi- processor system, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronic, game consoles, set-top box (STB), network personal computer (PC), mini-computer, and so forth.”) and (ii) network site (Fig. 1 and ¶28 shows “The application server(s) 140 may host a listing network platform 142 . . .” Fig. 3 and ¶99 shows “FIG. 3 shows a listings network site user interface 300 (e.g., mobile application user interface, web browser user interface) generated by the listing network platform 142 and combined listing search system 150, according to some example embodiments.”) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 and 3 and ¶99 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) computing device and (ii) network site, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 and 3 and ¶99 shows elements in combination), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 and 3 and ¶99 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (i) computing device and (ii) network site, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 and 3 and ¶99 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., interfacing with a web-platform) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) computing device and (ii) network site, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 and 3 and ¶99 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-22 recite the abstract idea of:
“identifying a set of individual listings of the plurality of listings that match the listing request; and determining that a quantity of listings in the set of individual listings fails to satisfy a minimum available inventory threshold, 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” (Claim 2);
“wherein the listing request comprises a destination category, further comprising: determining that the first and second listings match the destination category, wherein the combined listing is generated in response to determining that the first and second listings match the destination category” (Claim 3);
“wherein the destination category comprises at least one of national parks, beaches, surfing, camping, theme parks, or skiing” (Claim 4);
“wherein the multiple-day length of stay parameter specifies a quantity of days or a flexible duration of stay, and wherein the minimum length of stay threshold comprises five days” (Claim 5);
“wherein each of the different portions comprises a set of days starting from a start date and ending prior to an end date, and wherein each of the different portions comprises a set of days starting from a date later than the start date and ending on the end date” (Claim 7);
“wherein a first group of the stays on which the individual listing is available comprises a first half of the multiple-day length of stay parameter, and wherein a second group of the stays on which the individual listing is available comprises a second half of the multiple-day length of stay parameter” (Claim 8);
“determining that a second combination of the portion of availability of the first refined group of the first individual listing with the portion of availability of a third refined group of a third individual listing matches the multiple-day length of stay parameter; computing a rank for the first and second combinations; and selecting either the first or second combination to generate the combined listing based on the computed rank of the first and second combinations” (Claim 9);
“wherein the rank for the first and second combinations is computed based on individual ranks of the first, second and third individual listings” (Claim 10);
“wherein computing the rank for the first and second combinations comprises:
computing a first difference between the portion of availability of the first refined group of the first individual listing and the portion of availability of the second refined group of the second individual listing;
computing a second difference between the portion of availability of the first refined group of the first individual listing and the portion of availability of the third refined group of the third individual listing; and
associating a first rank with the first combination that is greater than a second rank associated with the second combination in response to determining that the first difference is smaller than the second difference” (Claim 11);
“wherein computing the rank for the first and second combinations comprises:
computing a first compatibility criterion between the first individual listing and the second individual listing; computing a second compatibility criterion between the first individual listing and the third individual listing; and
associating a first rank with the first combination that is greater than a second rank associated with the second combination in response to determining that the first compatibility criterion is associated with a higher level of compatibility than the second compatibility criterion” (Claim 12);
“wherein the first compatibility criterion and the second compatibility criterion Claim 13);
“determining that a given individual listing matches the listing request; and excluding the given individual listing from being used as a basis to form one or more combined listings” (Claim 14);
“wherein the combined listing is a first combined listing, further comprising: preventing presentation of a second combined listing in response to determining that the second combined listing includes the first listing that is also included in the first combined listing to introduce diversity in the presentation of the combined listing together with the one or more other listings” (Claim 15);
“determining whether the listing request comprises a destination category; and modifying a level of flexibility in ranking and combining listings to form the combined listing based on determining whether the listing request comprises the destination category” (Claim 16);
“determining that the level of flexibility in ranking and combining corresponds to an inflexible threshold level; and in response to determining that the level of flexibility in ranking and combining corresponds to the inflexible threshold level, increasing a level of diversity among the listings used to form the combined listing” (Claim 17);
wherein the plurality of listings includes at least one of locations or experiences” (Claim 18);
“determining that a distance between the first and second listings falls within a threshold range comprising a minimum distance and a maximum distance, wherein the combined listing is generated using the first and second listings in response to the distance between the first and second listings being between the minimum distance and the maximum distance of the threshold range” (Claim 19);
“automatically selecting a destination category to base the generation of the combined listing based on past interactions the searching end-user had . . .” (Claim 20);
“wherein the past interactions includes at least one of: filtering criteria, types of destinations searched for in a past threshold interval, price point of searched listings, or family status” (Claim 21);
“applying one or more . . . to generate the combined listing, to generate the ranked order, to compare a first combined listing with a second combined listing, and to select whether to present a given listing as part of a given combined listing or as an individual listing in the presentation” (Claim 22).
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-22, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-5 and 7-22 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations merely further limit the abstract idea itself. The further elements of Claims 2-5 and 7-22 (i.e. “the network site” of Claim 20 and “one or more neural networks” of Claim 22) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer components similar to the generic computer components of Claim 1 or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. online computer environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-5 and 7-22 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-5 and 7-22, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-5 and 7-22 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-5 and 7-22 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-5 and 7-22 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 23-24 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1. Claims 23-24 recite additional elements (i.e. “A system comprising: one or more processors of a machine; and a memory storing instruction that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations” in Claim 23 and “A machine-readable storage device embodying instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations” in Claim 24) that amount to generic computer components that merely apply the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to an online computer environment, just as in Claim 1 with similar generic computer components. Therefore, Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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”), and 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights