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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on October 8, 2025.
• Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is maintaining the Specification objections.
The Examiner is withdrawing the claim objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing some of the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
New claim objections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
New 35 USC § 112 rejections have been entered due to applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 14-15, regarding support for “enforce record-based authorization associated with the hotel, the block owner, and the secondary buyer,” the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. There is no support in the cited portions of the Specification for this feature. For example, paragraphs [0055]-[0058] merely describe data records, and [0087]-[0091] merely describe a buyer purchasing a partial hotel block.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 15, regarding support for “facilitate authenticated messaging sessions… requiring account-based access credentials, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. There is no support in the cited portions of the Specification for this feature. For example, paragraph [0067] merely describes a user creating an account to purchase a room, and [0073] merely describes data communications between a server and a computing device. For example, the Specification is devoid of any support for authenticated messaging sessions; nor does the Specification discuss account credentials.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 15, regarding support for “executing stored logic linked to the secondary buyer record against criteria stored with the partial block listing record…” the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. There is no support in the cited portions of the Specification for this feature. For example, paragraph [0078] and [0085] merely disclose a buyer being authorized to purchase, and [0087]-[0091] merely describe a buyer purchasing a partial hotel block.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16, regarding support for “…in accordance with contract data stored in association with the partial block listing record…”, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. There is no support in the cited portions of the Specification for this feature. For example, paragraph [0057] merely describes what data an offer-for-listing record includes, and paragraph [0081] merely describes distributing funds.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 2 for “contract data associated with the partial block listing record,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for storing specifically contract data including number of hotel rooms, a price for the number of hotel rues, and an occupancy date.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 6 for “evaluating buyer information against stored criteria to determine authorization,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for any stored buyer criteria.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 7 for “messaging session requiring login with account credentials,” although the Specification at [0055]-[0061] and [0067] describing in general messaging, the Specification is devoid of any support for the feature of enabling messaging session; nor does the Specification disclose anything related to login credentials.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 8, regarding “digital authorization indicating permission to complete purchase,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for this feature, and although the Specification at FIG. 3 discloses storing authorization of hotel and secondary buyer, the Specification does not support that these stored authorizations are specifically authorizations that permit the secondary buyer to complete the purchase.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 9, regarding “digital confirmation indicating permission for fulfillment,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for this feature, and although the Specification at FIG. 3 discloses storing authorization of hotel and secondary buyer, the Specification does not support that these stored authorizations are from the hotel and are for permitting fulfillment of the partial hotel rooms block to the second buyer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 10, regarding “charging a listing fee recorded in association with the listing record,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for this feature, and although listing fees are generally discussed in the Specification including at [0089], the Specification is devoid of any support for storing the fee in a database.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 16, regarding support for claim 14 for “authenticated communication sessions,” the paragraphs cited by Applicant do not show support for this feature, and although the Specification at paragraph [0067] merely describes a user creating an account to purchase a room, the Specification is devoid of support for authenticated communication sessions established a marketplace system.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 17, regarding support for claim 16, the Examiner refers Applicant to arguments about regarding claim 6 above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 17, regarding support for claim 17, the Examiner refers Applicant to arguments about regarding claim 8 above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 17, regarding support for claim 20, the Examiner refers Applicant to arguments about regarding claims 8-9 above.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 18, that the claims go well beyond organizing human activity or mental processes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes the claims were found to recite organizing human activity, not mental processes. Furthermore, as indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for providing a hotel room marketplace enabling users to creating listings for block hotel rooms and secondary buyers to purchase block hotel rooms under contract terms, and charging secondary users for the purchase. The Specification at [0003]-[0004] states:
“Before our invention, a shortcoming was that there was no way for a block owner of a group of hotel rooms to sell a subset block of the unused rooms to a secondary buyer…The present invention addresses these and other shortcomings by providing a hotel room online marketplace where hotels have the ability to help their clients (hotel room block owners) fill/sell their excess inventory. This not only can help strengthen the relationship between the hotel and its clients, but it will also help the hotel develop relationships to create new business opportunities with the secondary buying groups who are buying rooms from their clients (hotel room block owners)”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase, which is a commercial and legal interaction including agreements in the form of contracts, marketing and sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-19, that the claims address a technical problem unique to distributed marketplaces and provide a solution of a non-conventional computing architecture, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase (see at least [0003]-[0004] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 19 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to this argument, the Examiner again notes, as indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed inventions allows for providing a hotel room marketplace enabling users to creating listings for block hotel rooms and secondary buyers to purchase block hotel rooms under contract terms, and charging secondary users for the purchase. The Specification at [0003]-[0004] states:
“Before our invention, a shortcoming was that there was no way for a block owner of a group of hotel rooms to sell a subset block of the unused rooms to a secondary buyer…The present invention addresses these and other shortcomings by providing a hotel room online marketplace where hotels have the ability to help their clients (hotel room block owners) fill/sell their excess inventory. This not only can help strengthen the relationship between the hotel and its clients, but it will also help the hotel develop relationships to create new business opportunities with the secondary buying groups who are buying rooms from their clients (hotel room block owners)”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase, which is a commercial and legal interaction including agreements in the form of contracts, marketing and sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 19-20, that the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. In response to this argument, the Examiner notes that “Mental Processes” are not the only category of abstract idea recognized in the MPEP. The MPEP also recognizes that “commercial and legal interaction” including agreements in the form of contracts, marketing and sales activities or behaviors, and business relations are among the enumerated groups of abstract ideas (MPEP §2106.04(a)). Furthermore, Examiners are directed to continue to use the Mayo/Alice framework (incorporated as Steps 2A and Step 2B) to resolve questions of eligibility and that Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes may be an abstract idea), and (2) comparing the claimed concept to the concepts previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts to determine if it is similar (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 20 regarding “conclusory allegations of ‘mental processes,’” in response to this argument, Examiner again notes[the claims were found to recite organizing human activity, not mental processes.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 20, regarding McRO, Applicant’s reliance upon McRO is misplaced. The claims in McRO were held patent eligible because the claims were directed at specific rules that resulted in an improvement to the technology of computer generated lip synchronization. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process." The claims at issue in McRO described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, allowing the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. In the instant application, the Applicant has failed to show or demonstrate where the technological improvement is. Rather, the pending claims are directed to solving the problem of providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase (see at least [0003]-[0004] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. The claims of the instant application are not directed to an improvement to a technological problem, and therefore McRO is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 20-23, that the claims recite a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here the claims recite an online marketplace; a microprocessor-executed platform including a structured relational database comprising interlinked records and executable logic configured to perform functions; authenticated messaging sessions; a plurality of computing devices operated by each party; a server-side routine; the microprocessor-based server system such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 22-23 regarding the purported non-conventional relational schema and server-executed workflow, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0003]-[0004], describing addressing shortcomings with hotel online marketplaces and providing improvements including strengthening relationship between hotel and client, and also helping the hotel create new business opportunities.
Applicant’s reliance upon DDR, on page 21, is misplaced. Applicant’s reliance upon DDR Holdings is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in DDR, in which the inventive concept was in the modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display because Applicant’s claims here in the instant application do not address problems unique to the Internet or require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information. Rather, the pending claims are directed to solving the problem of providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase (see at least [0003]-[0004] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., providing an online marketplace to for sellers to list and sell block of hotel rooms for secondary buyers to purchase, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
Applicant’s reliance upon Bascom, on page 22 and again on page 23, is misplaced. The claims here are not like those the Court found patent eligible in Bascom, in which the inventive concept was the unconventional arrangement of the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, this design permitted the filtering tool to have both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the [Internet Service Provider] server and was not conventional or generic, instead, the patent claimed and explained how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345.). In the instant application the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-23 that the claims recite an inventive concept, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of the claim include an online marketplace; a microprocessor-executed platform including a structured relational database comprising interlinked records and executable logic configured to perform functions; authenticated messaging sessions; a plurality of computing devices operated by each party; a server-side routine; the microprocessor-based server system. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 22 and again on 23 that the Examiner has not provided evidentiary support, in response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully points out that the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). This consideration is different than the Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional Consideration –See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Applicant’s reliance upon Amdocs, on page 23, is misplaced. In Amdocs, the claims are directed towards the network processing data in way that was unconventional resulting to an improvement to the technical area for processing data by reducing the flow of data records and reducing the amount of data stored in the central database, thus eliminating capacity bottlenecks, and improving the scalability and efficiency of the system, resulting in an improvement to the additional elements themselves. As to the indirect improvements to the technology (i.e. reduction of bandwidth consumption) based upon performance of the claimed invention, any software can be argued to improve a computer. It can always be argued that the software runs the process more efficiently thereby reducing the demands placed upon the computer system, however this does not necessarily mean the computer itself is improved. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-24 regarding the dependent claims, the arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For example, certain features of the dependent claims recited by the Applicant on pages 23-24 merely further describe the abstract idea of allowing for providing a hotel room marketplace enabling users to creating listings for block hotel rooms and secondary buyers to purchase block hotel rooms under contract terms, and charging secondary users for the purchase. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the lack of antecedent basis for the claimed limitations:
“relational data” in claim 1.
“transaction workflows” in claim 1.
“listing-specific rules” in claim 1, 15, and 19.
“post-purchase transaction sequence” in claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “the fee recorded…” For clarity and consistency, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the listing fee” so that it is not confused with the previously recited “relevant fees” as recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a structured relational database comprising interlinked records.” There is not support in the Specification for a relational database; nor is there support in the Specification for a database with interlinked records. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations of “enforce record-based authorization.” The Specification is devoid of any feature regarding enforcing record-based authorization. In fact, the Specification is devoid of any disclosure pertaining to any enforcing of authorization; nor does the Specification describe any type of record-based authorizations. Therefore, this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation of “store… hotel profiles, secondary buyer profiles… and further store and retrieve… authorization states, and listing-specific rules.” Although the Specification at [0055] and FIG. 3 discloses databases storing various records, the Specification is devoid of any support for storing profiles, authorization states, and listing-specific rules. Therefore it is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, the claim recites “facilitate authenticated message sessions… by referencing the message record and requiring account-based access credentials to conduct transactional workflows.” Although the Specification generally describes communicating data including at [0029], the Specification is devoid of any support for an authenticated message session. Nor does the Specification describe referencing message records; nor does the Specification describe any type of access credentials used. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the hotel room marketplace validates the request by executing stored eligibility logic linked to the secondary buyer record against criteria stored with the partial block listing record.” The Specification is devoid of any support for the feature of validating a request by executing stored eligibility logic; nor does the Specification any type of eligibility data stored and linked to a secondary buyer; nor does the Specification contain any support for the feature of an eligibility condition at all. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “execution of the funds allocation protocol comprises a server-side routine that retrieves data from the payment account record to direct distribution of the received payment.” Although the Specification at [0081] describes distributing funds, the Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a server-side routine; nor does the Specification describe retrieving data from a payment account record; nor does the Specification describe any type of direct distribution of the received payment. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “the interlinked records of the structured relational database enforce transaction integrity by linking authorization states and payment account data to the partial block listing record, thereby preventing inconsistent or unauthorized resale transactions.” Again, the Examiner notes there is no support in the Specification for a relational database; let alone a database with interlinked records. Furthermore there is no support in the Specification for linking of authorization states and payment account data; let alone storing these data in relation to a partial block listing record. And, there is no support in the Specification for preventing inconsistent or unauthorized resale transactions. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation of “contract data associated with the partial block listing record is stored in the structured relational database, the contract data comprising a number of hotel rooms, a price for the number of hotel rooms, and an occupancy date for the number of hotel rooms.” As an initial matter, the Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a structured relational database. Furthermore, although the Specification at [0055] and FIG. 3 discloses databases storing various records, the Specification is devoid of any support for storing specifically contract data including number of hotel rooms, a price for the number of hotel rues, and an occupancy date. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the relational database.” The Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a structured relational database. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the relational database.” The Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a structured relational database. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “stored buyer criteria.” There is no support in the Specification for this feature. Although the Specification describes secondary buyer criteria, the Specification is devoid of any support for any stored buyer criteria. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “enabling, via the hotel room online marketplace, a messaging session between the block of hotel rooms owner and the secondary buyer, wherein access to the messaging session requires the secondary buyer to log in with account credentials established in the marketplace.” Although the Specification at [0055]-[0061] and [0067] describing in general messaging, the Specification is devoid of any support for the feature of enabling messaging session; nor does the Specification disclose anything related to login credentials. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the relational database.” The Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a structured relational database. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 8, the claim recites recording a digital authorization “permitting the secondary buyer to complete the purchase… the authorization stored in associated with the partial block listing record.” Although the Specification at FIG. 3 discloses storing authorization of hotel and secondary buyer, the Specification does not support that these stored authorizations are specifically authorizations that permit the secondary buyer to complete the purchase. Therefore this feature is new matter.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the relational database.” The Specification is devoid of any disclosure of a structured relational database. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Furthermore regarding claim 9, the claim recites recording “a digital from the hotel permitting fulfillment of the partial hotel rooms block to the second buyer, the confirmation stored in association with the partial block listing record” Although the Specification at FIG. 3 discloses storing authorization of hotel and secondary buyer, the Specification does not support that these stored authorizations are from the hotel and are for permitting fulfillment of the partial hotel rooms block to the second buyer. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the fee recorded in association with the partial block listing record.” Although listing fees are generally discussed in the Specification including at [0089], the Specification is devoid of any support for storing the fee in a database. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the hotel room online marketplace is configured to provide one or more mandatory hotel add-on products or services, in accordance with contract data and associated conditions stored in association with the partial block listing record.” There is no support in the Specification for the feature of a hotel room online marketplace providing products or services. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “authenticated communication sessions established through the marketplace system.” There is no support in the Specification for authenticated communication sessions established a marketplace system. Therefore this limitation is new matter.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 6 above, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 8 above, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claims 1 and 6 above, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claims 8-9 above, and is rejected under the same rationale.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
Claims 1-20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “relevant fees.” The phrase "relevant" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the micro-processor based server system.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claim 1 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
The rest of the dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 15, and 19 are each directed to a method. Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 15, and 19 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 15, and 19 recite, in part, a method of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a method of utilizing a hotel room online marketplace to enable a secondary buyer to purchase a subset of a block of hotel rooms from a block of hotel rooms owner who previously contracted for the block of hotel rooms, the method comprising the steps of: creating, on a hotel room marketplace, by a block of hotel rooms owner or by a hotel, an offer-for-sale listing that comprises a hotel property, an occupancy date, and a price for a partial hotel rooms block, the partial hotel rooms block comprises comprising less than all of a block of hotel rooms, or a portion thereof from one or more blocks of hotel rooms, or a portion thereof from one or more blocks of hotel rooms, previously contracted for by the block of hotel rooms owner, the partial hotel rooms block is offered under at least the same set of a contract terms agreed to between the hotel and the block of hotel rooms owner; wherein the hotel room marketplace comprises interlinked records including a block owner record, a hotel record, a secondary buyer record, a partial block listing record, a payment account record, and a message record, and logic configured to: (i) enforce record-based authorization associated with the hotel, the block of hotel rooms owner, and the secondary buyer, (ii) store and retrieve relational data records comprising offer-for-sale listings, hotel profiles, secondary buyer profiles, and associated contractual conditions and further store and retrieve contract data, authorization states, and listing-specific rules in association with the partial block listing record, and (iii) facilitate messaging between participants by referencing the message record and requiring account-based access credential to conduct transactional workflows among parties; receiving, from a secondary buyer, by way of the hotel room market place and responsive to the offer-for-sale listing, a request to purchase the partial hotel rooms block, including agreeing to the contract terms, wherein the hotel room marketplace validates the request by executing stored eligibility logic linked to the secondary buyer record against criteria stored with the partial block listing record; and charging the secondary buyer the price for the partial hotel rooms block, wherein the hotel room marketplace executes a funds allocation protocol that programmatically distributes the received payment to one or more accounts associated with the hotel and the block of hotel rooms owner in accordance with contract data stored in association with the partial block listing record, and wherein the execution of funds allocation protocol comprises a routine that retrieves data from the payment account record to direct distribution of the received payment; wherein the hotel room marketplace accepts payment from the secondary buyer and automatically redistributes relevant fees to the hotel and to the block of hotel rooms owner in accordance with stored contract data and wherein all validation, authorization, messaging, and funds allocation steps are executed by the hotel room marketplace and wherein the interlinked records enforce transaction integrity by linking authorization states and payment account data to the partial block listing record, thereby preventing inconsistent or unauthorized resale transactions.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above and further recites authorizing, by the hotel, the secondary buyer to purchase the partial hotel rooms block.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above and further recites evaluating, by the hotel room marketplace, information associated with the secondary buyer against stored criteria linked to the secondary buyer record and the partial block listing record, and authorizing the secondary buyer to complete the purchase of the partial hotel rooms block only upon determining, by executing stored eligibility logic, that the stored criteria are satisfied.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for providing a hotel room marketplace enabling users to creating listings for block hotel rooms and secondary buyers to purchase block hotel rooms under contract terms, and charging secondary users for the purchase, which is a commercial and legal interaction including agreements in the form of contracts, marketing and sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The mere nominal recitation of an online marketplace do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of an online marketplace; a microprocessor-executed platform including a structured relational database comprising interlinked records and executable logic configured to perform functions; authenticated messaging sessions; a plurality of computing devices operated by each party; a server-side routine; the microprocessor-based server system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions users interacting with an online marketplace to list and purchase re-sale hotel blocks) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements 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 in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-13, 16-18, and 20 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 14 simply further describes the technological environment. Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation of one or more of a server with data communications between the server and a plurality of computing devices, the plurality of computing devices are operated over a global network, which merely further describes computers that communicate as part of the generally linked computer network.
The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11562387 B2 (“Gregorek”) discloses an e-commerce based transaction system on a network connected via the Internet to multiple remote computers and mobile phones providing the distribution of hotel room lodging reservations or other lodging sites for location and date of specific events. A central database is hosted on a server and transmitted to individual remote servers or users that can have a respective database of listings from individual brokers oration or other system participants. In the alternative, the blockchain can be a mode of information dissemination. E-commerce transactions are conducted by the system, which performs a number of transaction-related functions, such as posting available hotel room reservations or lodging site reservations for sale, and purchasing spaces for use, resale, brokerage or pure speculation online. The system and methodology accommodate location-based events where hotel rooms are listed by brokers or hotel operators or owners and sold to individual system users and marketed reflective of and in advance of specific time and location sensitive events.
US 10410143 B2 (“Jacob”) discloses a system for managing inventory transactions within an online marketplace including a reservation server to mediate inventory exchange from a buyer to a seller via an online network. The reservation server includes a memory and a processor coupled to the online network. The memory includes computer-executable instructions that when executed by the processor, establishes a sales channel between the seller and buyer. The sales channel includes a direct sales channel, an indirect sales channel, and resale channel. The online network includes a marketplace server including an inventory that can be reserved, sold, or resold through the sales channel mediated by the reservation server based on the reservation server receiving an inventory reservation request from the seller or buyer. Further, the inventory includes a set price, and the buyer can purchase, repurchase, reserve, option, or swap at least one inventory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694