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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 10/02/2025. Claims 9 – 10 & 19 – 20 were amended in a reply filed 12/24/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2026 & 04/07/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 6 – 7, that, similar to Ex parte Desjardins, the instant specification “explains that intent expressed through natural language conversation cannot be directly processed by a travel-actor search engine without producing results that are inconsistent with that intent (Spec., ¶¶ [00129]-[00130]),” and that the exemplary instant claim 1 limitations reciting “parsing the parameters into a plurality of portions according to a refinement protocol” and “sending at least one of the portions to a first travel-actor engine for a first search” serve to “reflect the disclosed technical improvement.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the functionally of “parsing the parameters into a plurality of portions according to a refinement protocol” and “sending at least one of the portions to a first travel-actor engine for a first search” amount to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. In particular, the claim language itself gives no details of a technological parsing or refinement protocol; therefore, the claimed limitations of “parsing the parameters into a plurality of portions according to a refinement protocol” and “sending at least one of the portions to a first travel-actor engine for a first search” are a part of the abstract idea. Indeed, the instant specification (paras. 128, as filed) shows that determining user intent is important for searching for relevant itineraries – but that applies equally when the parsing and intent determination is abstract (e.g. a human will parse a conversation for parameters that are crucial a customer’s intent to take a particular trip). As such, the functionality of parsing a conversation for terms indicative of a user’s desire for a particular trip, and then using these terms to search for trips, is a part of the recited abstract idea of providing an itinerary to a customer based on a conversation. Therefore, the above-quoted claim limitations do not amount to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 7, that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite “a specific claim limitation that reflects the disclosed technical improvement-here, enforcement of parameter-based constraints on system-generated results through a refinement protocol applied to an intermediate representation-rather than merely reciting an abstract concept in isolation,” and that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are not directed to a judicial exception and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite additional elements that amount to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. For example, the claim 9 & 19 limitations of “wherein the refinement protocol filters the raw outline to exclude superfluous results” equates to the parsing a conversation for terms indicative of a user’s desire for a particular trip, and is a part of the recited abstract idea of providing an itinerary to a customer based on a conversation. The claim 10 & 20 limitations of “wherein the refinement protocol is generated using a large language model (LLM) engine” amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Therefore, claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. As such, the claims recite a judicial exception without integration into a practical application, and the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 11 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 & 11 substantially recite: “initiating a session with a client… for engaging in a natural language conversation with the client…; generating parameters based on the conversation; parsing the parameters into a plurality of portions according to a refinement protocol; sending at least one of the portions to a first travel-actor… for a first search; receiving a raw outline from the first travel-actor… based on the at least one of the portions; transforming the raw outline into a travel itinerary responsive to the conversation based on the parameters and the refinement protocol; and, forwarding the travel itinerary to the client.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, the functions in the context of claims 1 & 11 encompass providing an itinerary to a customer based on a conversation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 & 11, as a whole, amount to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer element of “device.” Claim 11 recites the additional generic computer elements of “processor,” “memory for storing programming instructions,” and “device.” Claims 1 & 11 also recite the additional elements of “search engine” and “engine.”
The additional elements of “processor,” “memory for storing programming instructions,” and “device” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “search engine” and “engine” merely generally link the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements as recited in claims 1 & 11 of: “processor,” “memory for storing programming instructions,” “device,” “search engine” and “engine” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 10 & 12 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “large language model (LLM) engine” as recited in dependent claims 10 & 20, amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights