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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/10/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 10/10/25, the following is a non-final office action. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 3, 6 and 8 are cancelled. Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-25 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
2.35 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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-25, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic template records, which are managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, Opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of ”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating template information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing template records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to template records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended and therefore cannot be performed in the human mind. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes since the claim specifically discloses organizing, displaying and sharing reservation information between users using templates. The process of collecting and storing information using templates, listings and destination data; analyzing and selecting data, including selecting an appropriate template; and displaying or presenting information, including the graphical object representing a reservation, represent data organization and presentation of information, which are abstract ideas.
Additionally, the one or more processors, the database and the user interface are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions. These components are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea of sharing reservation information through a graphical postcard-like interface. “Displaying a postcard or enabling transitions between front and back portions represents a visual presentation of information, which is itself and abstract concept and not a practical application.
In addition, there is nothing “significantly more” recited in the present claims. The claimed processors, database and user interface performs well-understood, routine and conventional operations previously known in the art. Examiner therefore interprets the present claims as abstract ideas being processed by general purpose computers.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments that the present claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the alleged improvements are not to a technology or technical field but instead to informing guest about a reservation, which is an improvement to the reservation activity which falls under certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
October 27, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628