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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated November 7, 2025. In RCE, submitted February 4, 2026, claims 1, 9, 15 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 15 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 Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “For at least the reasons presented in the interview 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 amended claims are still determined to recite an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong Two, and analysis of the additional elements both individually and as a whole/ordered combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more at Step 2A Prong Two, or Step 2B.
Though not specifically argued, in order to promote compact prosecution, the specification references fail to disclose the specific technical problems that are provided specific technical solutions via the invention. As discussed in the interview “in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.” (See MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added). That is, the specification of McRO specifies the particular elements of the abstract idea which were previously impossible to perform with a computer and specifically how the claimed invention now allows a computer to perform those elements, thereby demonstrating support for the technical improvement of the claimed invention. Conversely, the instant specification appears to only gain improvement by using existing technologies and inheriting their efficiencies. This is evidenced throughout specification, such as in Para. 13 “implementations described herein enable use of a machine learning model (e.g., by a connecting system) to accept, as input, event information (e.g., associated with a travel itinerary and/or a calendar of a user) and provide, as output, vehicle information. As a result, network overhead is conserved that otherwise would have been spent on numerous communications with a user device.” (emphasis added). That is, the claimed invention conserves network overhead not through any technical improvement unique to the invention, but rather by generally linking the invention to the field of machine learning in order to employ known machine learning techniques to determine user preferences rather than “numerous communications”. See also, Paras. 35, 36, and 50, for similar examples of claiming benefit from generally linking to known aspects of machine learning. Additionally, specification Para. 47, “conserves power and processing resources” not through a technical improvement, but rather by simply not securing an needed vehicle option. Specification Paras. 31-32 merely describe the abstract idea of filtering as applied within the claimed invention, and specification Paras. 22, 26, and 27 describe the architecture through which the invention operates, but no support is given that this architecture is either unique or provides any specific improvement over previous systems. Therefore, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the rejection of the claims over 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation 18 recites “the first API function” and should recite “the API function” to conform to previous recitations of this API function. Alternatively, to further clarify the distinct API functions recited within the claims, the recitations of a/the “API function” in limitations 15 and 17 could be amended to recite a/the “first API function” to resolve this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 additionally recites “to generate user interface elements representing hat the subsequent preferred vehicle is secured” in limitation 21, and should recite “to generate user interface elements representing that the subsequent preferred vehicle is secured”. 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 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 associating 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;
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;
generating a second call in response to an error message 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; 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 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 the user;
receiving 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;
generating a second call, in response to an error message 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; and
transmitting instructions to generate elements representing that the next preferred vehicle is secured.
Independent claim 15 substantially 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;
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,
causing communication, based on transmitting a second call, in response to an error message 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; and
transmitting instructions to generate elements representing hat 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 (claims 1, 9, 15)/a device (claim 15), (v) an application programming interface function/an additional API function that is different from the API function (claim 15), (vi) a connecting system (claim 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 (claims 1, 9), (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), and (xiii) a database (claim 1).
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/a device, (v) an application programming interface function/an additional API function, (vi) a connecting system, (vii) a travel system, and (xiii) a database 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/a device, [0067] discussing the an application programming interface function/the additional API function, [0061] discussing the connecting system, and [0064] discussing the travel system and the database) 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, (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, 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/a device, (v) an application programming interface function/an additional API function, (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, (xi) a second API call, (xii) a second API function that is different from the first API function, and (xiii) a database 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 the generating a second API call associated with a second API function, in response to an error message communicating with the first API function. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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