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, 3-14, and 16-22 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 12/29/2026. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 18-20 were amended; claim 13 was cancelled and claim 23 was added in a reply filed 06/29/2026. Therefore claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16-23 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 in regards to section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to any abstract idea. Instead, the claims are directed to providing a technical solution to one or more technical problems to improve the functioning of a computing system. For example, the application as filed at paragraphs 15-21 and 67 describes how conventional sharing of reservation details to multiple users can involve privacy and security concerns as well as inefficient use of system resources. For example, the application as filed at paragraph 15 describes how the "sharing of login credentials [which] is prone to securing breaches and can result in undesired consequences" and that there "is no way for users to securely share access to listing for reservations with select guests and to limit access and modification rights that the guests have in viewing the listings." Further, "[p]rivacy concerns also arise when sharing reservation details, as it may involve sharing personal login credentials, posing a security risk." Application as filed at 17. Moreover, the "centralized nature of current reservations systems, where only a primary booker has access to reservation details, can lead to inefficient use of system resources" due to increased volume of inquiries by users without access, and an increase in communication traffic by the primary booker. Id. at 18.” (remarks p. 10).
The argument is not persuasive. The claims are directed to organizing and sharing reservation information among a group of users. The claimed steps of receiving a reservation request, determining whether a reservation is associated with a group of users, determining whether a graphical object has been pre-generated, transmitting the object if available, and otherwise generating and transmitting the object are steps for managing and presenting reservation information. These steps do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology.
Although the specification describes privacy, security, and resource concerns, the claim does not recite a specific technological mechanism that solves those concerns. The claim does not require encryption, masking, token validation, authentication logic, data partitioning, access control metadata in the graphical object, network optimization, or any other specific improvement to computer security or system performance.
Moreover, the claimed graphical object itself is not recited at storing, enforcing, verifying, or applying the access rights. The claim merely states that users access a portion of reservation information according to access rights specified by the individual user. That is a desired access result, not a particular technical security solution. The access rights are part of the reservation sharing rules, not an improvement to the graphical object, network platform, or computing system.
Pre-generating a graphical object before user selection merely changes the timing of ordinary content generation. The claim does not recite how the pre-generated object is cached, indexed, invalidated, versioned, compressed, synchronized, or otherwise managed in a way that improves computer functionality. The alleged reduction in runtime computation flows from doing the same generation step earlier, not from a technological improvement to the computer, network, database or rendering system.
Applicant argues “The claims provide a solution to these technical problems by generating and transmitting a graphical object or a pre-generated graphical object to each user to access a portion of information for the reservation on a listing network platform according to access rights specified by an individual user to address privacy and security concerns, allowing a user who created the reservation to specify access rights for each of the other users, including what information is available for each user. This, along with pre-computing a graphical object in advance, reduces the amount of computational resources by sharing access to a listing for a reservation in an efficient manner and by pre-generating a graphical object in a background process to reduce computational resources at runtime. Specifically, the claims provide a solution to these technical problems by: pre-generating a graphical object representing a listing for each of a plurality of listings when each listing is created or at a point after each listing is created and before each listing is selected by an individual user to generate a reservation; storing each graphical object as a pre-generated graphical object associated with each respective listing of the plurality of listings; receiving, by a network site of a listing network platform, 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, determining if a graphical object representing the listing has been pre-generated for the listing; based on determining that a graphical object has been pre-generated for the listing, transmitting the pre-generated object associated with the listing 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; and based on determining that a graphical object has not been pre-generated for the listing, generating, in real time in response to determining that the listing for the reservation is associated with a group of users traveling together to stay at the accommodation, 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; generating the graphical object by adding details corresponding to the reservation; according to visual attributes defined for the identified template; and transmitting the generated 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” (remarks p. 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They recite generic computer operations: generating data, storing data, checking whether stored data exists, and transmitting data. The claim does not improve the way the computer performs these operations. Instead, the computer is used as a tool to implement the reservation sharing workflow.
Furthermore, the fallback branch of generating the graphical object if it has not been pre-generated does not provide a technical improvement. Identifying a template based on a listing identifier, adding reservation details according to visual attributes, and transmitting the generated object are routine data processing and presentation steps. The claim does not recite a particular improved rendering technique, user interface mechanism, or network processing technique.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not overcome the 101 rejection. The claims remain directed to organizing and sharing reservation information among group travelers, and the additional computer elements merely implement that process using generic generation, storage, retrieval, and transmission operations.
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, 3-12, 14, and 16-23 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 “pre-generating a graphical object representing a listing for each of a plurality of listings when each listing is created or at a point after each listing is created and before each listing is selected by an individual user to generate a reservation; storing each graphical object as a pre-generated graphical object associated with each respective listing of the plurality of listings; 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, determining if a graphical object representing the listing has been pre-generated for the listing; based on determining that a graphical object has been pre-generated for the listing, transmitting the pre-generated object associated with the listing to 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; and based on determining that a graphical object has not been pre-generated for the listing, generating, in real time in response to determining that the listing for the reservation is associated with a group of users traveling together to stay at the accommodation, 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 generated 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 generated 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 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.
Dependent claim 23 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 18 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (processing the prompt with a large language model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art below, alone or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed ordered combination of operations in the context of a listing network platform for accommodation reservations.
Orttung (US 7925540) teaches group travel planning and sharing travel itinerary information with group members. It discloses that a user may form a group, book travel, and permit other group members to view or coordinate travel plans. However, It does not teach pre-generating a graphical object representing each accommodation listing before the listing is selected by an individual user to generate a reservation, storing each such pre-generated graphical object in association with a respective listing, determining during the reservation/group travel workflow whether the graphical object was pre-generated for the listing, and selectively transmitting the pre-generated object or generating a real time object depending on that determination.
Dunn (US 2007/0038765) teaches consent and access-right concepts, including determining whether a user or client is authorized to access information. However, Dunn does not teach graphical objects representing accommodation listings or reservations, nor does it teach the claimed pre-generation, storage, lookup, and fallback real time generation of such graphical objects.
Shepstone (US 2011/0035553) teaches cache management including updating cached content in the background and using metadata associated with cached content. However, it’s teachings are directed to generalized web caching and cache refreshing. It does not teach or suggest applying such caching to pre-generate graphical objects for each listing in an accommodation listing network before reservation selection, nor does it teach the claimed group reservation access workflow.
Oyarzabal (US 2012/0131445) teaches template based content creation, including inserting data values into template fields and formatting them according to template attributes. However, it does not teach accommodation listing reservations, group users traveling together, access rights specified by a booking user, or a conditional determination of whether a listing graphical object was pre-generated before deciding whether to transmit a pre-generated object or generate one in real time.
Mattis (US 6289358) teaches storing and supplying alternate versions of information objects from an object cache. However, it is directed to generalized cached information objects and does not teach graphical objects representing accommodation listings/reservations, group travel reservation sharing, user specified access rights, or the claimed pre-generation/fallback generation workflow.
Even when combined, the references above would require selecting isolated teachings from five separate systems: group travel coordination, access authorization, cache management, template-based generation and cached object delivery. The cited references do not provide sufficient teaching, suggestions or motivation to combine these disparate teachings in the specific claimed manner. The combination would be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s claim as roadmap.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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 3629
Prosecution Insights