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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 9-12, of Applicant’s Response, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 9-11, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20, do not fall within the revised Step 2A prong one framework under certain methods of organizing human activity concepts. Examiner, respectively, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that 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,” “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,” 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 and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity processing changes of traveler itineraries based on traveler preferences, the itinerary change parameters, and the related travel itineraries , which the entity can then update the scheduled itinerary based on those parameters thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as determining travel itineraries for travelers.
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite receiving a travel itinerary and related travel itineraries (i.e., collecting), which, the system will then evaluate the travel itinerary change tolerance parameters associated with the travel itinerary based on traveler preferences, the itinerary change parameters, and the related travel itineraries (i.e., analyzing). The system can then 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 for updating the travel itinerary without reevaluating the feasible alternative travel itineraries (i.e., analyzing), thus collecting travel itinerary information and analyzing that travel itinerary information without reevaluating the feasible alternative travel itineraries is merely related to a mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see the above analysis.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 11-12, 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 with applicant’s arguments.
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, 0082, and 00128 and applicant’s arguments on page(s) 11-12. 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").
Also, 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 technology occurs using an specialized, proactive optimizer, which materially changes and improves how computing resources are used for itinerary modification, implementing a specialized computation beyond conventional manual or automated scheduling thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
Applicant(s) specification nor amendments provide how this optimizer is improved. In fact, applicant’s specification provides a list of well-known optimizers such that the optimizer can use any type of optimization method capable of optimizing a particular change to an itinerary against a stated goal, including, but not limited to, machine learning based optimizations, statistical optimizations, decision-tree optimizations, or rule- based optimizations, see applicant’s specification paragraph 00122. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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, evaluating, generating, storing, and updating. 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.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 9, that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 since the claims meet the standard that it is more likely than not that the claim(s) are patent eligible. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, when evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter. The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in an application. For example, even if an independent claim is determined to be ineligible, the dependent claims may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein. If the evaluation of the claimed invention results in a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the claim as a whole does not satisfy both criteria for eligibility (Step 1: NO and/or Step 2B: NO), then examiners should formulate an appropriate rejection of that claim under Step 1 and/or Step 2B. The rejection should set forth a prima facie case of ineligibility under the substantive law. The concept of the prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and applicant. In particular, the initial burden is on the examiner to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond. When an examiner determines a claim does not fall within a statutory category (Step 1: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation of why the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of Step 1 and the statutory categories of invention. When an examiner determines that a claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation for each part of the Step 2 analysis. For example, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception, identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, and explain the reason(s) that the additional elements taken individually, and also taken as a combination, 1) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and 2) do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2A and the judicial exceptions, MPEP § 2106.05 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2B and the search for an inventive concept, and MPEP § 2106.07(a) for more information on formulating an ineligibility rejection. See, MPEP 2106.07.
Examiner, has provided a detailed analysis on how applicant’s limitations recite an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application, see the Non-Final Office action mailed on 10/20/2025, on page(s) 2-16. Examiner has provided why applicant’s limitations are more likely than not unpatentable as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner, has provided arguments, with specific evidence from applicants current claims and specification, along with relevant court cases. Thus, showing applicants current claims are more likely than not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive
Fourth, Applicant, further, argues on page 11 of applicants’ arguments, that the claims are analogous to those of Enfish thus are not directed to the above abstract ideas and are integrated into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants’ arguments.
As an initial matter, while applicant argues that the computer can update the travel itinerary without receiving additional travel itineraries or additional related travel itineraries thus providing a more efficient computer and memory usage similar to when the courts in Enfish found the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and recite patent-eligible subject matter, see applicant’s arguments on page 11. Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
Unlike, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., where the court found that the applicants specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data from memory, (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). But, similar to, TLI Communications, the court determined that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result was not sufficient to show an improvement to technology, see MPEP (2106.05)(a)(II)(iii). Here, applicant states receiving a travel itinerary and related travel itineraries (i.e., gathering), which, the system will then evaluate the travel itinerary change tolerance parameters associated with the travel itinerary based on traveler preferences, the itinerary change parameters, and the related travel itineraries (i.e., analyzing). The system can then 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 for updating the travel itinerary without reevaluating the feasible alternative travel itineraries (i.e., analyzing) thus merely gathering travel information and analyzing that information to update an optimized itinerary are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining itineraries. Thus, at best the limitations are merely gathering travel information, analyzing that information, and then updating the travel itinerary for the user, which, an improvement to the judicial exception doesn’t amount to an improvement in technology.
Furthermore, unlike in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp, the court found features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology such that the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. But, 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 updating optimized itineraries thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception. See, mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859. The court in, Secured Mail Solutions. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The court in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., further stated that the claims in Enfish “focused on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”. In this case, applicant doesn’t provide an advance in hardware or software that, for example, causes a computer to operate faster or more efficiently, or improves the computer or memory itself. The alleged improvement to “computational resources” does not parallel the improvement in Enfish.
As an initial matter, it should be noted that applicant’s claim limitation(s) are not as narrowly claimed as Enfish. Furthermore, applicant hasn’t provided that the claims are directed to a new sort of itinerary system and/or how the memory usage is being reduced, or similar improvement(s) to the computer functionality. Merely providing a more efficient way to update and generate optimized itineraries is at best an improvement to the abstract idea. It should be noted that merely reciting a result-oriented solution that lacks any details as to how the computer performed the modifications is the equivalent of the words “apply it.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims “so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 12-18, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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 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,” 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,” and “updating,” 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, and updating, 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. 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.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 20, are distinguished from the art.
Janakriaman et al. (US 2005/0096946 A1). Janakriaman et al. teaches a user via a client device can provide a server travel accommodations or enter information about reserved travel accommodations. Janakriaman et al., also, teaches that he server can access a computer system to identify travel itineraries that are currently active, such that the itinerates meet the current time and/or departure time, of the users travel itinerary. Janakriaman et al., further, teaches discrepancies between the current travel conditions and the travel itinerary are identified. The system can identify that the either that there is a delay in arrival time by 45 minutes and/or the departure time for the flights are different. The system can use the user rules and preferences to determine the discrepancies between the user’s travel itinerary. The system can take the rule set and the user preferences to determine the changed new flight information, which the system can access an itinerary database to apply the rules and preferences to determine new travel accommodations. The system can obtain itinerary information, which the traveler’s rule set is then applied to any differences identified and a determination is made as to whether the travel accommodations in the itinerary need to be modified based on the rule set to the differences.
However, Janakriaman, 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.
Slivka et al. (US 2003/0225600 A1). Slivka et al. teaches rules can be based on a passenger profile information and maintained in a passenger history, behavior, and/or profile database. Slivka et al., further, teaches that based on a disrupted passenger one or more rules can be modified. The rules can help determine a re-accommodation process from alternative sources and/or destinations locations, which the system can use alternative itineraries for the re-accommodation process in order to efficiently optimize transportation services. The rules are maintained in a rules engine, which the rules can be modified to reaccommodate the disrupted passenger to another itinerary.
However, Slivka et al., 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 will updated without receiving additional travel itineraries or additional related travel itineraries from the one or more travel supply networks
Aragone et al. (US 2017/0278158 A1). Aragone et al. teaches dynamically flexible rules. Aragone et al., also, teaches the rules are a subset of products in the itineraries, which the products can be for flights/air travel. The system can also apply the rules to multiple itineraries.
However, Aragone et al., 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.
Berthaud et al. (US 8,589,211 B2). Berthaud et al. teaches a call can be received which the system call produce a flight graph of constraints allowing an exploration of selected flights that constitute the set of solutions based on a changed request. Berthaud et al., further, teaches a call can be received which the system call produce a flight graph of constraints allowing an exploration of selected flights that constitute the set of solutions based on a changed request. The set of solutions will be proposed to the end-user. Berthaud et al. teaches a change request. The system can determine change restrictions, which the change restrictions can include the change penalty.
However, Berthaud et al., 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
Bustos et al. (US 11,885,633 B1). Bustos et al. teaches the system can determine whether to permit or restrict a transportation change request. The system can identify the transportation change request based on or more received signals received by the requestor client device to determine whether to restrict or permit changes to a specified waypoint. Bustos et al., also, teaches the system can determine whether to permit or restrict a transportation change request that contains a change in a waypoint request. The system can determine to restrict the request base on a metric exceeding or equaling a predetermined threshold. The system can then determine to the waypoint is restricted and create a restriction notification. The system can determine the waypoint is restricted, which the system can provide a restriction notification. The restriction notification will generate a pop-up message, a banner notification, partial screen overlay, full screen notification, an auditory notification, or another type of notification. The system will provide a “No destination change,” “No waypoint change,” or “No route change,” notification.
However, Bustos et al., 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.
Jafri et al. (US 2023/0015924 A1). Jafri et al. teaches a user can send a travel request, which the platform can perform a search for flights, which the flights can be provided to user. The flights will be sorted based on a user preference, such as ordered by price. Jafri et al., further, teaches a listing of search results can be provided to a display in an order based on the user preferences. Jafri et al., also, teaches a user can send a travel request, which the platform can perform a search for flights, which the flights can be provided to user. The flights will be sorted based on a user preference, such as ordered by price. Jafri et al., also, teaches that the user can make a selection regarding the travel reservation.
However, Jafri et al., also, 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.
Brocato et al. (US 2022/0113147 A1)(filed provisional with a date of October 12, 2020). Brocato et al. teaches a cancellation of a flight on which the rider is booked can be initiated, which the system will determine if the user has not yet initiated the multi-modal transportation itinerary or a threshold period before initiation. Brocato et al., further, teaches a service entity computing system can cancel the entire multi-modal transportation itinerary.
However, Brocato et al., 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.
Schulz (US 2022/0108235 A1). Schulz teaches a modification to a multi-modal transportation itinerary can be determined based on an uncertainty associated with a first leg of the initial candidate multi-modal transportation itinerary. The system can determine that he user is historically 2 minutes late to board a vehicle at an origin location and current traffic conditions will delay the transit by 1 minute, which the uncertainty of delay is 3+ minutes is associated with the first leg. Schulz, further, teaches that based on the uncertainty of delay then the system can modify the initial itinerary, which the system will then generate an updated candidate multi-modal transportation itinerary for the user based on the modification of the initial candidate multi-modal itinerary
However, Schulz et al., 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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