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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 09/29/2025. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 were amended; claims 2 and 15 were cancelled, and claims 21-22 were added in a reply filed 12/12/2025. Therefore claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2025 and 12/12/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 10, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to claim 5 objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 5 objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 10, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 11-13, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 in regards to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant simply argues that “Applicant respectfully disagrees for reasons of record. Further, the claims have been amended to include further technical detail that is also not directed to any abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claims are not directed to any abstract idea.” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments do not overcome the 101 rejection because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the computer functionality or technical field. In addition, Applicant’s argument does not specify which technical details Applicant is referring to. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is conclusory and the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 3-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1/19/20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “Receiving a request from an individual user to book a reservation comprising an accommodation at a destination; In response to determining that a listing for the reservation is associated with a group of users traveling together to stay at the accommodation, generating a graphical object representing the reservation by: Identifying a template in a group of templates based on a listing identifier corresponding to the listing for the reservation, and generating the graphical object by adding details corresponding to the reservation according to visual attributes defined for the identified template; and Transmitting the graphical object to user of the group of users traveling together”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a network site of a listing network platform and a computing device associated with each user of the group of users (claim 1); a network site of a listing network platform, one or more processors of a machine and a memory and a computing device associated with each user of the group of users (claim 19) and machine-readable storage device and a network site of a listing network platform and a computing device associated with each user of the group of users (claim 20). The claims further recite “Transmitting the graphical object to a computing device associated with each user of the group of users traveling together to access a portion of information for the reservation on the listing network platform according to access rights specified by the individual user” as an additional element. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component respectively. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (an interactive postcard is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 6/7/8/10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“a graphical user interface on an individual device of the one or more devices “) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“associating the link with the reservation “) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 12/13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“invalidating the link in response to determining that at least one of the reservations has been canceled “) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 16/17/18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 21 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“generating a unique link including a random sequence of characters; storing the unique link in association with the graphical object; receiving a request from a first user of the group of users to join the reservation; accessing the unique link and determining whether the unique link is in an active state or a revoked state; based on determining that the unique link is in an active state, enabling access to the reservation for the first user; and based on determining that the unique link is in a revoked state, preventing access to the reservation for the first user“ is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions. The generation of the link and determination of its active or revoked step does not improve the functionality of the computer or a technical field) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 22 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Novelty and Non-obviousness
Examiner is unaware of any prior art, alone or in combination, which discloses the limitations of the independent claims, especially, “In response to determining that a listing for the reservation is associated with a group of users traveling together to stay at the accommodation, generating a graphical object representing the reservation by; Identifying a template in a group of templates based on a listing identifier corresponding to the listing for the reservation, and Generating the graphical object by adding details corresponding to the reservation according to visual attributes defined for the identified template”
The closest prior art is Geraci (US 9704109). It is directed towards community travel booking. It focuses on collaborative selection and individual purchase, not on template-driven graphical object generation tied to a listing identifier or per user partial views.
The closest prior art is Lee (US 2018/0287973). It is directed towards techniques for templated messages. However, it is a generic messaging framework that is not tied to reservations, listings, or group travel, and does not impose per user access rights on what portion of the template content is visible. Furthermore, the message is not generated based on a reservation listing but rather on a message identifier and has no option for group travel or reservations.
The closest prior art is Onyekwelu (US 2021/0027215). It is directed towards coordinating group travel plans. It addresses sharing an itinerary with a group elected by a user, but does not teach template selection by listing identifier, graphical object construction, or per user partial disclosure within a single templated object.
The closest prior art is Frank (US 20150163256). It discloses organizing travel information for a group but does not operate as a listing network platform and does not generate a graphical object representing a reservation. It also lacks any disclosure of identifying a template from a group of templates based on a listing identifier or applying visual attributes defined for said template.
The closest prior art is Brunn (US 2014/0278593). It discloses reservation confirmations and notifications but does not disclose generating a graphical object using a template selected based on a listing identifier. It does not teach a group of templates, template selection logic, or visual attributes governing graphical generation.
The closest prior art is LeCompte (US 2013/0346119). It discloses sharing itinerary information but does not generate a graphical object representing a reservation. It also lacks any disclosure of template identification based on listing identifier or visual attributes defined for a template. Although, it discloses sharing the itinerary, the sharing is manual and content based and it is not triggered by group travel determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628