Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/12/2026 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 09/11/2025, Applicant, on 01/12/2026, amended independent Claims 1 and 11; Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
6. The prior 35 USC §103 rejection withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process) or device (machine), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method .. of adjustment of operational resources based on external events, the method comprising: retrieving input data from at least one data source .. ; extracting, from the input data, an event detection record by determining: (i) a time period associated with an event, (ii) one or more locations associated with the event, and (iii) an impact direction associated with the event, the impact direction selected from a negative direction corresponding to a disruptive event, and a positive direction corresponding to a non-disruptive event; retrieving, based on the time period and the location, a set of operational resource data corresponding to travel services having locations matching the locations associated with the event, the set of operational resource data including identifiers of suppliers of the travel services; generating an impact magnitude associated with the event, based on at least one of (i) a number of the locations associated with the event, (ii) a length of the time period associated with the event, and on a number of suppliers or consumers of the travel services indicated by the retrieved set of operational resource data; selecting, based on (i) profile data corresponding to the suppliers identified in the set of operational resource data, the profile data indicating at least one event type, (ii) the impact direction and (iii) the impact magnitude, one or more suppliers of the operational resources from the suppliers identified in the set of operational resource data; and transmitting a notification to .. the selected supplier, the notification including the event detection record, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because retrieving data and extracting a record from the data pertaining to an event is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Furthermore, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, it also falls under the abstract idea category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because selecting suppliers and sending a notification to the suppliers is a business practice involving commercial interactions. Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 11, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as a computing device, a communications interface; and a processor, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 11, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 15, 25-27 and 32 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 3-8 and 13-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 19 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and network identifiers, a memory of the computing device, automatically, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the Claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 3-8 and 13-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 19 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and network identifiers, a memory of the computing device, automatically, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 15, 25-27 and 32 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered and are found persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which has therefore been withdrawn; however, they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 6-7) that at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter analysis, the amended claim language is not directed to an abstract idea but integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because “Enabling functionality in a computing system that previously depended on subjective human judgement is plainly an improvement to technology”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At paragraph 9 above in this office action, a clear explanation is provided as to how the claim language recites an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One. At Step 2A Prong Two, it is clearly explained that the additional (computer) elements implement generic computer functions and are therefore merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); thus they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional elements do not add an inventive concept (“significantly more”) at Step 2B for reasons similar to those provided at Step 2A Prong Two, and the claims are thus ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As noted at MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
12. With regard to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent-eligible by analogy with McRO, Inc. v Bandai Namco Games, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the fact pattern in the instant claim language is totally different to that in McRO (pertaining to rules that automatically set a keyframe at the correct point to depict more realistic speech for animated characters).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights