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 1-17 and 19-21 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated May 5, 2026. In Response, submitted July 30, 2026, claims 1, 9, 15, and 16 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 14 of the Response regarding the previous objection to claim 15, have been fully considered however this claim remains objected to.
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the amended claim language still uses “the API function” and “the first API function” interchangeably in limitations 16, 18, and 19 rather than using consistent nomenclature throughout.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 14-18 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claimed combination integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a specific, technical improvement to the operation of the user device and the network. Moreover, the technical improvements are explicitly recited in the claims in line with the recent Desjardins case. Furthermore, under Step 2B, the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. Support is set forth below. The combination of the following features integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and provides significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. … Claim 1, as amended, recites generating a first API call to a first API function to secure the preferred vehicle option and, ‘in response to an error message from communicating with the first API function,’ generating ‘a second API call associated with a second API function, that is different from the first API function,’ to secure a subsequent preferred vehicle option. This is a specific technical mechanism, not an abstract concept ([0046], [0047], [0049]; upon an unavailable option, the connecting system automatically communicates with an additional API function to secure a subsequent preferred vehicle option).”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, as currently claimed the power and processing resources that are allegedly conserved in connection with the user device and the network related to the system are recited as mere tools used to perform the abstract ideas carried out by the user device and the network (such as communicating or refraining from communicating). The technical aspects of how power and processing resources are consumed are not changed in the context of the currently claimed invention, rather the conservation occurs due to changes to the abstract idea of the way the invention applies communication. That is, the conservation of these resources happen when the invention simply does not perform the abstract communication, rather than through any technical improvement to the technical aspects of the invention.
Examiner further notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “generating a first … call … to secure the preferred vehicle option and, ‘in response to an error message from communicating …,’ generating ‘a second … call…’ to secure a subsequent preferred vehicle option” and “upon an unavailable option, … automatically communicat[ing] … to secure a subsequent preferred vehicle option” are recitations of the abstract idea. The API calls and API functions are recited merely at face-value within the specification (See Specification, Paras. 46-50), further the connecting system is disclosed via numerous general implementation examples (See Specification, Para. 61). These levels of generic disclosure supports the Examiner’s findings that these additional elements amount to merely performing the recited abstract ideas by generally linking them to the field of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and using the connecting system as a generic tool to perform the abstract ideas, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
On Page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites that ‘the second API call is automatically triggered without user intervention upon detection of the error message.’ This automated, machine-initiated failover is a technical solution rooted in computer functionality rather than a manual or mental process ([0046], [0047], [0049]; connecting system automatically proceeds to a subsequent preferred vehicle option and secures it via an additional API function).”
Examiner notes, the above analysis of the API call and API function additional elements applies to this argument as well. Further, mental process is not an abstract idea grouping applied to the recited abstract idea in either the detailed rejection below or the previous Office Action, therefore this aspect of the argument is moot. Here, the recitations of “the second … call [being] automatically triggered without user intervention upon detection of the error message” and “connecting system automatically proceeds to a subsequent preferred vehicle option and secures it” are abstract ideas which are carried out by the connecting system (acting as a generic tool) and through being generally linked to the field of APIs. The presence of these additional elements, the use of the word “automatically” or phrase “without user intervention” do not inherently mean the solution is rooted in technology or computer functionality. As is the case here, such high levels of disclosure of these technical elements indicate that they are merely being generically used to carry out the abstract solution, rather than being representative of a technical solution.
On Pages 15-16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites features that reduce resource consumption by ‘conserving power and processing resources at the user device’ and reducing ‘network overhead ... that otherwise would have been spent on numerous communications’”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, these alleged benefits are not resultant of any technical improvement, but rather secondary benefits gained through changes/alleged improvements to the abstract idea of refraining from communicating. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to abstract idea is not an improvement to the technology.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites that ‘the user device refrains from communicating with one or more API functions for vehicle options, thereby conserving power and processing resources at the user device and a network related to the system.’ Offloading the research/selection processing from the user device to the connecting system is a concrete technical improvement to the functioning of the user device, is a specific configuration of the network, and is a specific modification to conventional networks, that results in reduction of resources being used, reduction of network traffic/overhead, and improvement in security of the system by minimizing vulnerabilities that may exist between a user device and the system.”)
Examiner notes, simply moving the abstract “research/selection processing” from occurring at the user device to occurring at the connecting system does not change or improve the functioning of the user device. Simply not using the device is not an improvement. While this architecture may reduce network traffic and resources at the user device, the way in which the components technically interact remain unchanged, and the resources are still being consumed, just by different node in the network.
Examiner further notes, the alleged “improvement in security of the system by minimizing vulnerabilities that may exist between a user device and the system” is presented solely 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). There appears to be no direct support for this alleged improvement found within the claims or the specification, thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
On Page 16-17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites securing the preferred (and subsequent preferred) vehicle option via the connecting specific API calls, ‘wherein the user device refrains from securing the preferred vehicle option’ and ‘refrains from securing the subsequent preferred vehicle option.’ Having the connecting system, rather than the user device (e.g., via a provider website), secure the option further conserves power and processing resources at the user device, which also amounts to a specific configuration/modification of a network system, as explained above … As explained above, claim 1, as amended, recites features that modify the configuration of the network by offloading processing from the user device to the connecting system and changing the point of contact for API communications from the user device to the connecting system. This specific configuration reduces resources used, reduces network traffic originating from the user device, and thereby also improves security (fewer credential-bearing communications originate from the user device) … credentials used by the connecting system in communicating with the API function). … The user device refrains from communicating with multiple API functions and refrains from securing the options, and therefore, network traffic originating from the user device is reduced. This concentrates sensitive communications (including credentials) at the connecting system rather than distributing them from the user device across multiple provider endpoints, improving security”
Examiner notes, as discussed at length above, simply not performing a process at the user device does not improve the user device. These processes of securing a preferred or subsequent preferred vehicle are still carried out by the system as a whole. Simply not using the user device does not improve the technical aspects of how the device operates, or how the consumes power and processing resources. While the abstract securing processes are relocated to a different system within the invention, the technical aspects of the network system and each component remain unchanged, and simply relocating an abstract process from one node in a network to another does not inherently constitute an improvement to the network. Further, Examiner directs the Applicant to the discussion above regarding the conclusory nature of the alleged security improvements, further noting that the “credential-bearing communications” are not recited in the claim sets depending from claims 1 and 15, and are only recited in 2 dependent claims depending from claim 9. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “The above improvements are not merely described in the specification, they are explicitly recited in the claims. For example, ‘refrains from communicating,’ ‘refrains from securing,’ automatically-triggered failover, and second-API-function limitations, etc. - in line with the recent Desjardins decision.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, “‘refrain[ing] from communicating,’ ‘refrain[ing] from securing,’ automatically-trigger[ing] failover” are abstract recitations insofar as they are claimed. Further the short-comings of API function limitations are discussed at length above.
On Pages 17-18 of the Response, Applicant argues “the ordered combination of features recited in claim 1, as amended (at least, receiving event information, filtering candidate options, applying a machine learning model to obtain a preferred option, securing it via a first API function, and automatically failing over to a second, different API function upon an error, all while the user device refrains from these communications) is a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “receiving event information, filtering candidate options, applying a … model to obtain a preferred option, securing it …, and automatically failing … upon an error” are recitations of the abstract idea. The API functions, have been discussed at length above, and the same rationale applies at Step 2B as applied at Step 2A, Prong Two. The user device is disclosed merely as a device “capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, and/or providing information”, with numerous non-exhaustive examples (See Specification, Para. 63). This high level disclosure supports the findings at both Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B that the user device is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract process of “refrain[ing] from these communications”. Similarly, the machine learning model is disclosed by way of numerous non-exhaustive examples (See Specification, Para. 35). This high level of disclosure supports the findings at both Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B that the abstract idea of “obtain[ing] a preferred option” is performed merely by generally linking it to the field of machine learning through the use of the machine learning model element. Therefore, when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, the claims fail to amount to “significantly more” as they only amount to “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
On Page 18 of the Response, Applicant argues “The claim addresses a problem specifically arising in networked computing, excessive network overhead and device resource consumption caused by a user device communicating with multiple API functions to research and secure a vehicle. The solution is based on technical improvements of specific configuration of the network (offloaded processing and server-side API orchestration), analogous to eligible solutions in DDR Holdings and BASCOM”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, the claimed invention merely relocates where the abstract processes of “communicating … to research and secure a vehicle” takes place. Simply not performing these steps at the user device does not improve the user device or the network it relies on, but merely shifts the same abstract processes to another entity within the system. This simple shift of abstract processes is not analogous to DDR Holdings or BASCOM.
On Page 18 of the Response, Applicant argues “The claim recites providing the filtered list and preference to a machine learning model configured with a model parameter learned from input data and tuned by hyperparameter sets that are not learned from input data. This is not a recitation of generic ‘apply it on a computer’ feature. The ML model is integrated into a particular technical pipeline that produces the ranked preferred/subsequent options driving the automated API failover ([0034], [0035], [0036], [0038]). For at least the reasons presented in the interview and above, and without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection, independent claims 1, 9, and 15, as amended, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner notes, the ML modeling processes are not alleged to be “generic ‘apply it on a computer’” in the detailed rejection below or the previous Office Action. As discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, the generic disclosure of the machine learning model by way of numerous non-exhaustive examples supports the findings the invention merely uses the machine learning model to generally link the abstract processes of “providing the filtered list and preference to a … model configured with a model parameter learned from input data and tuned by hyperparameter sets that are not learned from input data” and “produc[ing] the ranked preferred/subsequent options” to the field of machine learning. This, even in combination with the API calls and functions discussed at length above and all the other additional elements, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: limitation 16 recites “a first application programming interface (API) function by transmitting a request via a first API call to the API function” (emphasis added); limitation 18 recites “a second API function that is different from the API function … communicating with the API function” (emphasis added); limitation 19 recites “transmitting the request to the first API function” (emphasis added). “the API function” and the “first API function” appear to be the same API function with an inconsistent naming convention applied to its description. Consistent nomenclature should be used throughout when referring to this API function, such as: “a first application programming interface (API) function by transmitting a request via a first API call to the first API function” in limitation 16; limitation 18 recites “a second API function that is different from the first API function … communicating with the first API function” in limitation 18; and “transmitting the request to the first API function” in limitation 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 21 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 9-14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-17 and 19-21 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receiving, from a first data source, event information associated with a flight;
transmitting an authorization to access a second data source;
determining, using the event information, a list of possible vehicle options by mapping a destination location using associated locations with available vehicle providers;
receiving, from the second data source, an indication of at least one destination location based on a subscription to updates from the second data source,
wherein the indication of at least one destination is received based on at least one of a schedule or updates to the second data source with new destination locations;
filtering using the at least one destination location, the list of possible vehicle options to generate a filtered list of possible vehicle options;
receiving a preference associated with a user;
providing the filtered list of possible vehicle options and the preference in order to receive an indication of a preferred vehicle option,
wherein a model parameter is used,
wherein the model parameter includes an attribute of a model that is learned from data input into the model,
wherein one or more hyperparameter sets are used to tune,
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets include a structural parameter that controls execution, and
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets are not learned from data input into the model;
outputting a representation of the preferred vehicle option to the user,
wherein communicating with vehicle options is refrained from;
receiving from the user and in response to outputting the representation, a confirmation of the preferred vehicle option;
generating a first call, by transmitting a request, wherein the request is in response to the confirmation and includes information related to the preferred vehicle option, to secure the preferred vehicle option,
wherein securing the preferred vehicle option is refrained from;
generating a second call in response to an error message from communicating to secure the preferred vehicle option,
wherein the error message is received in response to transmitting the request, and
wherein the second call is automatically triggered without user intervention upon detection of the error message;
securing a subsequent preferred vehicle option that is indicated based on transmitting another request via the second call, wherein the another request includes information related to the subsequent preferred vehicle option, wherein securing the subsequent preferred vehicle option is refrained from; and
transmitting instructions to generate elements representing that the subsequent preferred vehicle option is secured.
Independent claim 9 substantially recites receiving, from a first data source, event information associated with a travel itinerary;
transmitting an authorization to access a second data source;
receiving, based on the authorization, based on a subscription to updates from the second data source, and an indication of at least one destination location,
wherein the indication of at least one destination is received based on at least one of a schedule or updates to the second data source with new destination locations;
receiving a preference associated with a user;
providing the event information, the indication of the at least one destination location, and the preference in order to receive an indication of a preferred vehicle option,
wherein a model parameter is used,
wherein the model parameter includes an attribute of a model that is learned from data input into the model,
wherein one or more hyperparameter sets are used to tune,
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets include a structural parameter that controls execution, and
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets are not learned from data input into the model;
outputting a representation of the preferred vehicle option to the user,
wherein communicating for vehicle options is refrained from;
receiving from the user and in response to outputting the representation, a confirmation of the preferred vehicle option;
generating a first call, by transmitting a request, wherein the request is in response to the confirmation and includes information related to the preferred vehicle option, to secure the preferred vehicle option, wherein securing the preferred vehicle option is refrained from;
generating a second call in response to an error message from communicating to secure the preferred vehicle option, to secure a next preferred vehicle that is indicated,
wherein the error message is received in response to transmitting the request, and
wherein the second call is automatically triggered without user intervention upon detection of the error message;
securing the next preferred vehicle that is indicated based on transmitting another request via the second call, wherein the another request includes information related to the next preferred vehicle, wherein securing the subsequent preferred vehicle option is refrained from; and
transmitting instructions to generate elements representing that the next preferred vehicle is secured.
Independent claim 15 substantially recites one or more instructions for:
transmitting an authorization to access a calendar source associated with a user;
transmitting a preference associated with the user;
transmitting an instruction to book a travel itinerary;
receiving an indication of at least one destination location based on a subscription to updates from the calendar source,
wherein the indication of at least one destination is received based on at least one of a schedule or updates to the calendar source with new destination locations;
receiving to analyze information associated with the preference, and based on the at least one destination, an indication of a preferred vehicle option,
wherein a model parameter is used,
wherein the model parameter includes an attribute of a model that is learned from data input into the model,
wherein one or more hyperparameter sets are used to tune,
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets include a structural parameter that controls execution, and
wherein the one or more hyperparameter sets are not learned from data input into the model;
outputting a representation of the preferred vehicle option to the user,
wherein communicating for vehicle options is refrained from;
receiving, from the user, an interaction with the representation of the preferred vehicle option;
transmitting a confirmation of the preferred vehicle option in response to the interaction, to secure the preferred vehicle option by transmitting a request via a first call,
wherein the request includes information related to the preferred vehicle option, and
wherein securing the preferred vehicle is refrained from,
causing communication, based on transmitting a second call, in response to an error message from communicating to secure the preferred vehicle option, to secure a subsequent preferred vehicle that is indicated,
wherein the error message is received in response to transmitting the request, and
wherein the second call is automatically triggered without user intervention upon detection of the error message;
securing the subsequent preferred vehicle that is indicated based on transmitting another request via the second call, wherein the another request includes information related to the subsequent preferred vehicle, wherein securing the subsequent preferred vehicle is refrained from; and
transmitting instructions to generate elements representing that the subsequent preferred vehicle is secured.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) reserving transportation. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, and 15 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) one or more memories/a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (claim 1, 15), (ii) one or more processors (claims 1, 15), (iii) a machine learning model/machine learning algorithm (claims 1, 9, 15), (iv) a user device (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources) (claims 1, 9, 15)/a device (claim 15), (v) one or more API functions (claim 1, 9, 15), (vi) a connecting system (claim 1, 9), (vii) a travel system (claim 15), (viii) user interface elements (claims 1, 9, 15), (ix) a first application programming interface (API) call (claims 1, 9, 15), (x) a first API function/the API function (claims 1, 9, 15), (xi) a second API call (claims 1, 9, 15), (xii) a second API function that is different from the first API function (claims 1, 9, 15), (xiii) a database (claim 1), and (xiv) a network related to the system (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources) (claims 1, 9, 15).
The additional elements of (i) one or more memories/a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, (ii) one or more processors, (iv) a user device (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources), (v) one or more API functions, (vi) a connecting system, (vii) a travel system, (xiii) a database, and (xiv) a network related to the system (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources) are recited at a high level of generality (see [0071] of the Applicants PG Specification discussing the one or more memories/the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, [0070] discussing the one or more processors, [0063] discussing the user device (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources) /a device, [0067] discussing the one or more API functions, [0061] discussing the connecting system, [0064] discussing the travel system and the database, [0062] discussing the network related to the system, and [0013] discussing conserving power and processing resources) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts 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 (iii) a machine learning model/machine learning algorithm, (viii) a user interface element, (ix) a first application programming interface (API) call, (x) a first API function/the API function, (xi) a second API call, and (xii) a second API function that is different from the first API function are recited at a high level of generality (See [0035] of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the machine learning model/machine learning algorithm, [0053] discussing the user interface element, [0048] discussing the first application programming interface (API) call, [0046] discussing the first API function/the API function, and [0049] discussing the second API call and the second API function that is different from the first API function) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning, GUI buttons, and APIs) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1A-G, 3-4 showing all the additional (i) one or more memories/a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, (ii) one or more processors, (iii) a machine learning model/a machine learning algorithm, (iv) a user device (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources)/a device, (v) one or more API functions, (vi) a connecting system, (vii) a travel system, (viii) a user interface element, (ix) a first application programming interface (API) call, (x) a first API function/the API function, (xi) a second API call, (xii) a second API function that is different from the first API function, (xiii) a database, and (xiv) a network related to the system (used to refrain from communicating, thereby conserving power and processing resources) in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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. 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. Thus, the claims 1, 9, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 5 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 5 also recites the additional elements of a user interface and an interactive element, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0052-0054] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the user interface, and [0053] disclosing the interactive element) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., GUIs and virtual buttons) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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 element of a user interface and an interactive element does not 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 5 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 7 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 7 also recites the additional elements of a transaction processor and a travel system, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0024] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the transaction processor, and [0064] disclosing the travel system) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and 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 claims are 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: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a transaction processor and a travel system does not 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 8 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 8 also recites the additional elements of a calendar system, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0065] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the calendar system) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and 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 claims are 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: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a calendar system does not 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 14 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 14 also recites the additional elements of a machine learning host, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0066] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the machine learning host) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and 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 claims are 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: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a machine learning host does not 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 21 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 21 also recites the additional elements of a first interactive element, a second interactive element, a third interactive element which are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0053] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the first, second, and third interactive elements) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., GUI buttons) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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 of a first interactive element, a second interactive element, a third interactive element does not 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0363220 to Simoudis et al (hereafter Simoudis). Simoudis discloses systems and methods for receiving travel information and using machine learning to determine and recommend a preferred vehicle option to a user, then reserving a preferred vehicle option for a user.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0142406 to Hoover et al (hereafter Hoover). Hoover discloses filtering possible vehicle options for input into a machine learning model to determine preferred vehicle options.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0232730 to Edwards et al (hereafter Edwards). Edwards discloses using model parameters with machine learning models and hyperparameters for tuning the machine learning model.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0366445 to Lerner et al (hereafter Lerner). Lerner discloses functionality that secures a subsequent preferred vehicle option in response to an error message received in regards to the preferred vehicle option request.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0241186 to Handler et al (hereafter Handler). Handler discloses use of API calls and API functions to secure preferred or secondary reservation options.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Simoudis in view of Hoover and further in view of Edwards and even further in view of Lerner and even further in view of Handler fail to explicitly disclose “generating, by the connecting system, a second API call associated with a second API function, that is different from the first API function, in response to an error message from communicating with the first API function” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious 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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 S 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights