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 Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1 and 20 were amended. Claim(s) 2-19 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 12, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8-11, of Applicant’s Response, filed May 12, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page(s) 8-11, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). 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.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to enables the system to reduce the informational burden imposed on the traveler and the transactional cost associated with processing changes, increase convenience and efficiency for the traveler, and reduce operational complexities and sources of errors when intermediaries such as travel agents are involved, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0084. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., efficiently determining travel itineraries for travelers) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating the system can efficiently make changes as an alternative to storing the changed itineraries that reconcile the user profile, the potential itineraries, and the itinerary changes record, which may reduce the amount of data stored, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0084 and 00128, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
While applicant provides that the invention helps solve a technical problem of improving the functioning of the computer system by providing an updated travel itinerary more efficiently than in conventional systems, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0079 and 00128 and applicant’s arguments on page(s) 10-11. However, at best this an improvement to the abstract idea of updating travel itineraries using a computer, which doesn’t make it any less abstract. See, Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ('"[T]he prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment").
Secondly, even if it is determined that the specification doesn’t set forth an improvement in a conclusory manner, the independent claim(s) that are being evaluated fail to reflect the disclosed step(s) of accomplishing such improvement listed by applicant.
While applicant, also, states the system functionality is improved by generating the itinerary change tolerance parameters allows the claimed system to update the itinerary accurately but without wasting computational resources on receiving additional travel itineraries or like information. This improvement arises from an ordered computational architecture, as first the system constructs a feasibility/tolerance representation by intersecting structured datasets. Then, the system stores the optimized tolerance parameters as pre-computed feasibility results associated with the itinerary. Later, the stored results are used so that the system does not need to reevaluate the feasible alternative itineraries or receive additional itinerary data from supply networks, see applicant’s arguments on page 10. However, applicant’s claim(s) are not as narrowly claimed. Nor does applicant’s specification or claims provide limitations of how the computational resources are being reduce, for example, reducing memory management, unique data structure, and/or a specific memory caching process that physically enables the reduction of resources. Merely improving the abstract of efficiently determining travel itineraries is not enough for showing an improvement to computer functionality.
Also, another 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.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely storing, exchanging, receiving, receiving, retrieving, computing, evaluating, generating, updating, storing, updating, applying, and identifying, respectively, travel itinerary information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a database, a scheduler, and an optimizer), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system reduces information loss in between the time an itinerary is prepared and when a change to the existing itinerary is requested thus making the system more efficient, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0079, 0084, and 00128, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and storing itineraries thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides that information can be manually input, which the system can manually prepare a model for individual preferences. The itineraries can be manually evaluated by travelers and queried by agents, see paragraph(s) 0005, 0084, 00106, and 00127, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20 recites an entity that is able to receive a travel itinerary and other related travel itineraries. The entity will then evaluate the travel itinerary based on various parameters and preferences, which the entity will then generate an optimized itinerary and store the parameters for updating the travel itinerary. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20 limitations of “storing travel itineraries, traveler preferences, and itinerary change parameters,” “exchanging information with one or more travel supply networks,” “receive a travel itinerary,” “receive related travel itineraries,” “retrieve structured datasets comprising the itinerary change parameters, potential itinerary parameters, and user-preference parameters,” “compute a deterministic intersection among the structured datasets to derive a set of feasible changes to the stored travel itineraries,” “evaluate travel itinerary change tolerance parameters associated with the travel itinerary based on the traveler preferences, the itinerary change parameters, and the related travel itineraries, wherein the travel itinerary change tolerance parameters are dynamic with respect to a subset of feasible alternative travel itineraries based on the set of feasible changes, wherein the travel itinerary change tolerance parameters are evaluated when the travel itinerary is received,” “generate an optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters based on the evaluated itinerary change tolerance parameters and an optimization goal, the optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters comprising pre-computed feasibility results derived from the deterministic intersection among the structured datasets for updating the travel itinerary without reevaluating the feasible alternative travel itineraries,” “store the optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters for updating the travel itinerary,” and “wherein the travel itinerary is updated without receiving additional travel itineraries or additional related travel itineraries from the one or more travel supply networks, by applying the stored optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters to identify a feasible itinerary change without recomputing the deterministic intersection among the structured datasets,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment). Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20 are similar to an entity receiving travel itineraries, which the entity can then optimize the travel itineraries based on various parameters and preferences. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a database, a scheduler, and an optimizer; and Claim 20: have no additional elements, which, these claim limitations can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “storing,” “exchanging,” “receiving,” “receiving,” “retrieving,” “computing,” “evaluating,” “generating” “updating,” “storing,” “updating,” “applying,” and “identify,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a database, a scheduler, and an optimizer; and Claim 20: have no additional elements, which, these claim limitations can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper). Examiner, notes that the database, scheduler, and optimizer, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely storing, exchanging, receiving, receiving, retrieving, computing, evaluating, generating, storing, updating, applying, and identifying, itinerary information is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Furthermore, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system to reduce the informational burden imposed on the traveler and the transactional cost associated with processing changes, increase convenience and efficiency for the traveler, and reduce operational complexities and sources of errors when intermediaries such as travel agents, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0084 and 00128, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and storing itineraries thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides that information can be manually input, which the system can manually prepare a model for individual preferences. The itineraries can be manually evaluated by travelers and queried by agents, see paragraph(s) 0005, 0084, 00106, and 00127, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Also, a recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-19: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-19 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20 respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-19, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng (US 2025/0150381 A1). Peng teaches determining a candidate path. The system can determine a deterministic delay of each candidate path according to a current scheduling parameter. The system will then select a target path from at least one of the candidate paths according to the deterministic delay and then it will determine a route for the path. However, Peng., doesn’t explicitly teach retrieving structured datasets that includes change parameters, potential itinerary parameters, and user preference parameters. The system can compute a deterministic intersection among the structured datasets to derive a set of feasible changes to the stored travel itineraries. The system can generate an optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters based on the evaluated itinerary change tolerance parameters and an optimization goal, which the system stores the optimized set of itinerary change tolerance parameters for updating the travel itinerary. The system will updated without receiving additional travel itineraries or additional related travel itineraries from the one or more travel supply networks without recomputing the deterministic intersection among the structured datasets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (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 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights