Detailed Action
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 .
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 30 October 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 30 October 2025 amended Claims 1 and 19. Currently Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined. Claim 20 was previously canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained. This application is a continuation of 15/179,036 now US Patent 11,687,842. The art cited in the parent application has been considered in accordance with MPEP 609.02.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues on page 10 that “As recited in MPEP 2106.04(d), after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. If amended Claim 1 is asserted to recite an abstract idea, then because amended Claim 1 recites a practical application, namely a computer-implemented method of reducing data storage requirements, of providing travel-related price estimates, and of inferring which fare classes are available, the method including training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non- transitory storage medium, therefore amended Claim 1 is not "directed to" a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument that the claim recites a practical application is not persuasive, because while the claim recites “reducing data storage requirements” by storing incomplete versus complete data, this does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality or technology. The claim merely chooses to store less data rather than improving or technology. The claim merely chooses to store less data rather than improving how a computer stores or retrieves data, unlike cases such as Enfish v. Mircosoft., where the specific data structure improved the way computers store and retrieve information. Here, the purported “reduction” is simply the natural consequence of storing incomplete information rather than complete information – a decision about what data to collect, not a technical improvement to computer operations.
The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites receiving and storing price information, training classifier using historical data, calculating estimates, comparing estimates with Distribution System prices, and inferring fare class availability. These steps amount to using generic computer components (processors, servers, data stores) to perform conventional data collection, statistical analysis, and comparison operations. The claim invokes computers merely as tools to implement the abstract idea of collecting incomplete pricing data, analyzing patters, and making inference about fair availability – which are fundamental economic and commercial practices. See MPEP 2016.05(f). The recitation of training classifiers using machine learning techniques does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception, as these represent well-known analytical methods applied to commercial data. The claim fails to recite how the computer operations improve technology beyond merely automating conventional price analysis and comparison activities. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to the judicial exception and does not integrate it into a practical application under Step 2A Prong two. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that “Amended Claim 1 recites a practical application because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), amended Claim 1 provides an improvement to computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a), I. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY). The improvement in computer functionality is provided because in amended Claim 1 there is provided a computer- implemented method of reducing data storage requirements, of providing travel-related price estimates, and of inferring which fare classes are available, the method including training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, to infer the fare class availability, and to store the inferred fare class availability.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument that claim provides an improvement to computer functionality under MPEP 2106.05(a) is unpersuasive. The asserted improvement – reducing data storage requirement by storing incomplete rather than complete fare class information – does not improve now computers store or retrieve data, nor does it provide an unconventional technical solution. As explained in Enfish, LLC v. Mircosoft Corp., an improvement to computer functionality requires a specific implementation that improves the way the computer itself operates, such as a particular data structure that improves how computers store and retrieve information in memory. Here, the claim merely chooses to store less data (incomplete information) rather than more data (complete information), which is a business decision about what information to collect and retain, not a technical improvement in computer operations.
Moreover, in BSG tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., the Federal Circuit explicitly held that “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent an improvement in the database’s functionality.” The instant claim similarity improves what information is stored (price estimates derived from incomplete data) rather than improving database functionality or computer operations. The claim recites using generic components – processors, servers, non-transitory storage media, and classifiers – at a high level of generality to perform conventional data collection, statistical analysis, and inference operations within the travel industry field. The specification does not provide technical details explaining how the computer operations themselves are improved beyond the ordinary capabilities of generic computers performing routine data storage and processing functions. The claim therefore invokes computers merely as tools to implement the abstract idea rather than improving computer capabilities. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the claim does not reflect an improvement to computer functionality or technology under Step 2A Prong two. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that “The Applicant responds that amended Claim 1 includes steps (iv) and (d), including training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, to infer the fare class availability, and to store the inferred fare class availability, and that such steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments that the claim steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not demonstrate that the claim fails to recite abstract ideas. Courts have consistently held that claims can recite mental processes or abstract ideas even when they require a computer to perform them. As explained in Versata Dev. Group v. SAP AM., Inc., “courts 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.” See also Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loans Servs. Inc., (computer implemented method for “anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”). The mere fact that a computer performs the steps more efficiently or handles larger datasets does not transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. Steps (iv)(b), (iv)(c), and (iv)/d recite mathematical concepts, specifically grouping data by category, deriving statistics, and training classifiers using historical data – all of which involve mathematical calculations and statistical analysis See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the claimed method of collecting incomplete pricing information, analyzing patterns in the data, comparing estimated prices with Distribution System prices, and inferring fare class availability constitutes a fundamental economic practice relating to commerce – specifically, price analysis and market intelligence gathering. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (price optimization is a fundamental economic concept). The conceptual operations of grouping data, performing statistical analysis, comparing values, and making inferences based on those comparisons are mental process that can be performed mentally, even if it would be impractical to do so given the volume of data. The claim uses generic computer components (processors, servers, non-transitory storage media) merely as tools to automate and scale these concepts, which is insufficient to render the claim non-abstract under Step 2A Prong One. The Examiner notes however for the purpose of the rejection and which has been directed by the USPTO, during the course of examination the Examiner focused on the mental activity. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 18-19 that “The MPEP 2106.05(a) section II entitled "IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD" states: "Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology."
In amended Claim 1, the claim includes more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, because there is provided a computer- implemented method of reducing data storage requirements, of providing travel-related price estimates, and of inferring which fare classes are available, the method including training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, to infer the fare class availability, and to store the inferred fare class availability. The improvement in technology is provided because in amended Claim 1 there is provided a computer-implemented method of reducing data storage requirements, of providing travel-related price estimates, and of inferring which fare classes are available, the method including training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, to infer the fare class availability, and to store the inferred fare class availability. Training classifiers comprising structured data using historical price quotes from an incomplete historical travel-related price dataset embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, to infer the fare class availability, and to store the inferred fare class availability, in a computer-implemented method, was not provided for by the prior art. Accordingly, amended Claim 1 is not "directed to" a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible. Therefore amended Claim 1 is patent eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it “was not provided for the prior art” fundamentally conflates the separate statutory requirements of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 with novelty and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102-103. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected this approach, explaining that “the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”). Eligibility and patentability over the art are separate and distinct inquiries, and novelty over the prior art neither requires nor guarantees patent eligibility.
Moreover, Applicant’s reliance on MPEP 2106.05(a) is respectfully misplaced. That section instructs the “merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient” and that “the claim must include more than merely instructions to perform the method on a generic component.” The instant claim fails this test because it recites only generic computer components.” The instant claim fails this test because it recites only generic computer components (processors, servers, storage media, classifiers) performing conventional data processing operations – collecting price data, storing it, grouping it by category, deriving statistics, training classifiers, calculating estimates, comparing values, and storing results. The claim provides no technical details explaining how these components operate in an unconventional manner or how they improve computer functionality beyond their ordinary capabilities. Applicant merely repeats the claim language without explaining what technical improvement is achieved or how the claim reflects that improvement. Simply applying known machine learning techniques (i.e. training classifiers using historical data) to travel pricing field does not constitute an improvement to computer technology – it represents using computers as tools to implement abstract ideas of statistical analysis and commercial price estimation based on the analysis provided under a mental activity. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) (claims must “recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method” to show improvement). Accordingly, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception and is not patent eligible. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,687,842. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 12 in the referenced patent and claim 1 in the instant application recite substantially similar limitations. However, claim 1 in the instant application does not contain the following limitations recited in the referenced patent:
Wherein the stored incomplete historical travel-related price dataset uses a smaller data storage capacity than a complete travel related price dataset:
Thus claim 1 in the instant application is broader than claim 12 in the referenced patent and would anticipate the narrower claim of the referenced patent. (Additionally, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the referenced patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.)
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1-19 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-19 is/are directed to the abstract idea of providing fare availabilities such as airfare availabilities using received data that is compared and then a determination is made for the fare. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1-19) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-18) is/are directed to a method, and claim (19) is/ are directed to a system, and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1-19 recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 19 recite as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer server and processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a computer server and processor” language, the claim encompasses the collecting of information, analysis of information, and displaying of results providing fare availabilities. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the 2019 October Guidance: The 2019 PEG sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited server and processor elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; and additionally the data receiving, storing, obtaining and sending steps required to use the configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, sending, and providing do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a server and processor is used to perform the configuring, grouping, deriving, identifying, and configuring steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (inferring a fare class availability for a specific flight or flight using received data that is compared and then a determination is made for the fare). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving a request for price, storing each group classifier, obtaining historical price quotes, grouping the historical price, storing a computer, receiving from the Distribution System, comparing the calculated estimates, providing the inferred fare class and sending the request using a server and processor performs the determining estimated prices, and deriving statistics. The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, sending, and providing step), and amounts to mere data handling, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The server and processor that performs the configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, sending, and providing steps is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, sending, and providing step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (server and processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead 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, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 12 and 32 recite(s) receiving a request, configuring to determine estimated prices, obtaining historical prices, grouping the historical price, deriving statistics, storing each group a classifier, identifying groups, configuring to calculate, and sending the request which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, and sending which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (inferring a fare class availability for a specific flight or flight using received data that is compared and then a determination is made for the fare) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. inferring a fare class availability for a specific flight or flight using received data that is compared and then a determination is made for the fare). Using a computer to receiving, configuring, obtaining, grouping, deriving, storing, identifying, configuring, and sending from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The inferring a fare class availability for a specific flight or flight using received data that is compared and then a determination is made for the fare would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to determine a fare class available. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to determine a fare class available for a consumers:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 3 , 4, 8, 10, 15 and 16 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 7 and 12 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Belgaied which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the airfare classes. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of business sale optimization and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
With respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the claims that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the October 2019 Guidance and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the January 2019 Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patoureaux et al. (U.S. Patent 8,311,859 B2) discloses a method and system for determining an optimal low fare for a trip.
DeMarcken (U.S. Patent 8,571,903 B1) discloses a pricing graph representation for sets of pricing solutions for travel planning systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Rutao Wu 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623