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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s response dated 10/22/2025 has been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claims 4-27 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 28, 29 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/22/2025.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 28, 29 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.
Claims 1-3, 28, 29 are directed to organizing property wish lists, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-3 recite a method and at least one step. Claim 28 recites a system comprising a server and a memory. Claim 29 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in property wish lists are organized, in the following limitations:
displaying one or more category affordances, each category affordance corresponding to a respective category of one or more categories of properties available;
in response to detecting, a first input from a user to select a first category affordance of the one or more category affordances, displaying a first one or more property cards, each property card of the first one or more property cards corresponding to a respective property of a first one or more properties for a first category corresponding to the first category affordance;
displaying, a first one or more wish list icons, each wish list icon corresponding to a respective property card of the first one or more property cards;
in response to detecting, a selection by a user of a first wish list icon of the first one or more wish list icons, generating a first wish list for the first category and associating a first property corresponding to the first wish list icon with a first wish list for the first category;
displaying, an option to view wish lists created by the user;
in response to detecting, the user selecting the option to view lists, displaying a set of wish list affordances, each wish list affordance corresponding to a respective wish list of the wish lists created by the user; and
in response to detecting, the user selecting a first wish list affordance corresponding to the first wish list: displaying, a first property card corresponding to the first property associated with the first wish list.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to organize wish lists of properties available to rent or reserve. This arrangement amounts to a sales activity or behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
at a computing system having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors:
on a wish list management graphical user interface
in the online marketplace
on the wish list management graphical user interface
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“at a computing system…”, “on a wish list management graphical user interface”). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 63-88 indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 28 and 29 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2, 3
Claims 2 and 3 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea of organizing property wish lists. While the claims do set forth the additional limitation of “on the wish list management graphical user interface”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1-3, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong in view of Kumar et al. (US 20210264500 A1, hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding Claim 1
Truong discloses a method of organizing wish lists in an online marketplace, the method comprising:
at a computing system having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors:
displaying, on a wish list management graphical user interface, one or more category affordances, each category affordance corresponding to a respective category of one or more categories of properties available in the online marketplace (Truong: see at least ¶62, 66, 87; fig. 6,7)
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a first input from a user to select a first category affordance of the one or more category affordances, displaying a first one or more property cards, on the wish list management graphical user interface, each property card of the first one or more property cards corresponding to a respective property of a first one or more properties for a first category corresponding to the first category affordance (Truong: see at least ¶83, 90; fig. 6, 10
displaying, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a first one or more wish list icons, each wish list icon corresponding to a respective property card of the first one or more property cards; (Truong: see at least ¶85, fig. 14)
Truong does not explicitly disclose, but Kumar teaches in a similar environment:
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a selection by a user of a first wish list icon of the first one or more wish list icons, generating a first wish list for the first category and associating a first property corresponding to the first wish list icon with a first wish list for the first category; (Kumar: see at least ¶30, 62)
displaying, on the wish list management graphical user interface, an option to view wish lists created by the user; (Kumar: see at least ¶62-63; fig. 3, 4)
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, the user selecting the option to view lists, displaying a set of wish list affordances, each wish list affordance corresponding to a respective wish list of the wish lists created by the user; (Kumar: see at least ¶64)
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, the user selecting a first wish list affordance corresponding to the first wish list: displaying, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a first property card corresponding to the first property associated with the first wish list (Kumar: see at least ¶42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Truong with the features of Kumar, since such a modification would have merely united elements of the prior art references, with no change in the respective functions, and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claims 28, 29
Claims 28 and 29 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 2
Truong further discloses:
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a second input from the user to select a second category affordance of the one or more category affordances, displaying a second one or more property cards, on the wish list management graphical user interface, each property card of the second one or more property cards corresponding to a respective property of a second one or more properties for a second category corresponding to the second category affordance (Truong: see at least ¶76)
displaying, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a second one or more icons, each icon of the second one or more icons corresponding to a respective property card of the second one or more property cards (Truong: see at least ¶75)
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, the user selecting a third icon of the second one or more icons, associating a third property corresponding to the third icon with a second wish list for the second category (Truong: see at least ¶77)
Truong does not explicitly disclose, but Kumar teaches in a similar environment:
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, the user selecting a fourth icon of the second one or more icons, associating a fourth property corresponding to the fourth icon with the second wish list for the first category; (Kumar: see at least ¶48)
in response to detecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, the user selecting the option to view lists, displaying the set of wish list affordances including the first wish list and the second wish list (Kumar: see at least ¶64)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Truong with the features of Kumar, since such a modification would have merely united elements of the prior art references, with no change in the respective functions, and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3
Truong further discloses:
in response to the user selecting, on the wish list management graphical user interface, a second icon of the first one or more wish list icons, associating a second property corresponding to the second icon with the first wish list for the first category (Truong: see at least ¶90)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Real-time Personalization using Embeddings for Search Ranking at Airbnb (PTO-892 Reference U) describes personalizing short-term rental searches through Airbnb by using embeddings to characterize wishlists.
Xu et al. (US 20190122316 A1) discloses an online reservation system is configured to receive requests from a guest for searching property listings and to return property listings that satisfy the search criteria of the requests, including defining parameters for property categories.
Chin et al. (US 7016866 B1) discloses a system and method for assisting the buying and selling of property, including tracking user preferences for property types and providing an option for a user to create favorites lists.
Isgar (US 20230056737 A1) discloses a vacation rental locator system, including allowing users to save rental properties to a favorites list.
Thornburgh (US 20170308622 A1) discloses a qualitative rating system for multi-compartmented products responsive to search queries, including allowing a suer searching for vacation rental properties to define preferences for their wish lists of saved properties
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688