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
This action is in reply to application 18/583,571 filed 2/21/2024. Claims 1-7, 10-13, and 16-18 were amended in the reply filed 6/25/2025. Claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended in the reply filed 10/20/2025. Claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended in the reply filed 2/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 14 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 14 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although there are additional elements present in the claims, they are still directed to a judicial exception. Specifically, they are directed to an abstract idea in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations) that is merely “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional element “rating matrix” is considered part of this generic computer environment because it describes a generic data organization structure.
Applicant further argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims provide an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims are patent eligible because they recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amended claim features are not disclosed in any prior art references and therefore favor eligibility. However, novelty of the claims as a whole is not a standard used for determining subject matter eligibility. "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, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 17 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. See section below regarding novelty.
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, and 16 recite a method, a system, and an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, respectively, for performing a method of generating an itinerary based on real-time event aggregation, comprising: receiving, by a processor, a request to generate the itinerary for a first account maintained by a travel interface and a media content uploaded by one or more user devices and associated with the itinerary, wherein the first account is associated with a second account maintained by an issuer that offers transaction account services; performing, by the processor and from a plurality of different event sources, a first retrieval of travel-related transaction data associated with the issuer, wherein the travel-related transaction data includes travel data, and wherein the plurality of different event sources further comprise the travel data; identifying, by the processor, a travel event associated with the media content; reducing, by the processor, a combination of the plurality of different event sources and the travel event to an aggregation of events associated with the itinerary to which the one or more user devices have a real-time access, wherein the aggregation of events is dynamically updated based on changes to at least one of the plurality of different event sources or the travel event and is synchronized for simultaneous presentation via a target user device; generating, by the processor, a rating matrix comprising rows corresponding to the one or more user devices and columns corresponding to the aggregation of events; identifying, from the rating matrix by the processor based on a similarity score between the target user device and the one or more user devices, a subset of the one or more user devices; generating, by the processor, a prediction rating for at least one of the aggregation of events not previously selected by the target user device based on corresponding rows and columns of the rating matrix that are associated with the subset of the one or more user devices and the at least one of the aggregation of events; generating, by the processor, the itinerary for the target user device based on an aggregation of events and the generated prediction rating; generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface (GUI) including the generated itinerary displayed on a timeline, wherein the timeline visually arranges the travel data corresponding to the travel-related transaction data and the travel event in a sequential order in real-time, and wherein the GUI provides at least a real-time access or update of the itinerary based on the travel data and the travel event; in response to receiving, from the target user device, other instructions to update the itinerary, detecting, by the processor based on the other instructions, updated travel-related transaction data from at least one of the plurality of different event sources that modifies the travel-related transaction data from the second account in real-time, wherein the updated travel-related transaction data includes updated travel data; performing, by the processor and from the plurality of different event sources, a second retrieval of the updated travel-related transaction data based on a subset of the travel data, wherein the subset of the travel data is generated based on the travel-related transaction data having been updated within the timeline beginning with the first retrieval and ending upon the second retrieval; in response to performing the second retrieval of the updated travel-related transaction data, generating, by the processor, an updated timeline in real-time by modifying the sequential order of the timeline to include the travel data and the updated travel data; and in response to generating the updated timeline, updating, by the processor, the GUI in real-time to include the updated timeline. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations generating an itinerary based on ... event aggregation, comprising: receiving ... a request to generate the itinerary for a first account ... and a media content ... associated with the itinerary, wherein the first account is associated with a second account maintained by an issuer that offers transaction account services; performing ... from a plurality of different event sources, a first retrieval of travel-related transaction data associated with the issuer, wherein the travel-related transaction data includes travel data, and wherein the plurality of different event sources further comprise the travel data; identifying ... a travel event associated with the media content; reducing ... a combination of the plurality of different event sources and the travel event to an aggregation of events associated with the itinerary to which the one or more user ... have ... access, wherein the aggregation of events is dynamically updated based on changes to at least one of the plurality of different event sources or the travel event and is synchronized for simultaneous presentation ... generating ... rows corresponding to the one or more user devices and columns corresponding to the aggregation of events; identifying ... based on a similarity score between the target user device and the one or more user devices, a subset of the one or more user devices; generating ... a prediction rating for at least one of the aggregation of events not previously selected ... based on corresponding rows and columns ... that are associated with the subset of the one or more user devices and the at least one of the aggregation of events; generating ... the itinerary ... based on an aggregation of events and the generated prediction rating; generating ... the generated itinerary displayed on a timeline, wherein the timeline visually arranges the travel data corresponding to the travel-related transaction data and the travel event in a sequential order ... and ... provides at least ... access or update of the itinerary based on the travel data and the travel event; in response to receiving ... other instructions to update the itinerary, detecting ... based on the other instructions, updated travel-related transaction data from at least one of the plurality of different event sources that modifies the travel-related transaction data from the second account ... wherein the updated travel-related transaction data includes updated travel data; performing ... from the plurality of different event sources, a second retrieval of the updated travel-related transaction data based on a subset of the travel data, wherein the subset of the travel data is generated based on the travel-related transaction data having been updated within the timeline beginning with the first retrieval and ending upon the second retrieval; in response to performing the second retrieval of the updated travel-related transaction data, generating ... an updated timeline ... by modifying the sequential order of the timeline to include the travel data and the updated travel data; and in response to generating the updated timeline, updating ... to include the updated timeline, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements real-time (claims 1, 10, and 16), a processor (claims 1, 10, and 16), a travel interface (claims 1, 10, and 16), uploaded (claims 1, 10, and 16), one or more user devices (claims 1, 10, and 16), a target user device (claims 1, 10, and 16), a rating matrix (claims 1, 10, and 16), a graphical user interface (GUI) (claims 1, 10, and 16), a system (claim 10), an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon (claim 16), and a computer-based system (claim 16) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. The additional elements of real-time (described in spec. para. [0018]), a processor (described in spec. para. [0026]), a travel interface (described in spec. para. [0024]), uploaded (described in spec. para. [0069]), one or more user devices (described in spec. para. [0022]), a target user device (described in spec. para. [0022]), a rating matrix (described in spec. para. [0039]), a graphical user interface (GUI) (described in spec. paras. [0024], [0101]), a system (described in spec. para. [0004]), an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon (described in spec. para. [0029]), and a computer-based system (described in spec. para. [0096]) are all recited at a high level of generality in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known in the art such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. The dependent claims do not recite further additional elements. Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As noted above, the dependent claims do not recite further additional elements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Zhang (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0046802) in view of Chadha (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0085821). Other relevant references include: Nelson (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0317893), Tan (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0356909), Lopez (U.S. Pat. No. 10,445,666), Sahadi (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0352373), and Kumar (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0182637). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628