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 Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed November 11, 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 7-8 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 9-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
As discussed in the Non-Obvious Subject Matter section below, the previous rejection under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Prong One of revised step 2A: The claims, under BRI, do not recite a mental process
Applicant respectfully asserts that implementing a particular graphical user interface that structures, attributes, and renders availability computation outputs in a specific, claimed manner, cannot be practically performed in the human mind as claimed. For instance, independent claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the process requires action by a processor at a device (e.g., the availability determination server) that cannot be practically applied in the mind. In particular, the claimed steps of "obtaining, based on the availability request, future travel information associated with the travel provider, wherein the future travel information comprises one or more attributes, wherein the one or more attributes comprises a plurality of booking classes," "determining, via an availability determination algorithm, availability computation data for future departure dates, wherein the availability computation data for the future departure dates comprises a particular intervention input strategy," "determining availability computation variation data for a provided time frame," "providing an availability user interface to the user device," and "in response to determining that the availability computation variation data for the provided time frame exceeds an alert threshold for one or more portions of the availability computation data, providing, via the availability user interface, an alert mechanism in response to determining that the availability computation variation data for the provided time frame exceeds an alert threshold for one or more portions of the availability computation data," cannot practically be performed in the human mind, at least because it requires one or more processors coupled to computer memory to cause the one or more processors to perform each of these preceding steps. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting computing availability data for future departure dates and computing variation data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting determining availability of a travel provider for a future departure date. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting evaluating availability of a travel provider for a future departure date where identifying travel provider availability is identifying supply that can be sold. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing future travel information and evaluating availability of a travel provider for a future departure date. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Pronq Two of revised step 2A: Integration into a Practical Application
The particular combination of features and elements recited by the amended claims provide a specific improvement over prior art systems and thus, each of the rejected claims as a whole integrates any purported judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the recited features of the claimed invention facilitates a specific improvement for implementing a process that provides a particular graphical user interface that structures, attributes, and renders availability computation outputs in a specific, claimed manner. More specifically, this technology includes a process that shows to the analyst the contribution on the final availability of the different products in order to identify quickly any anomalies and solve them by adjusting the faulting process. For example, the optimization is based on a decision support tool, e.g., a user interface (UI) that shows what effect pricing strategies (from revenue management, dynamic pricing, and intervention input) are having on available price ranges (e.g., booking classes) that are made available to end users for each departure date. An alert can be sent to the airline when a change in available booking class is logged that is over a specific threshold. See, e.g., Applicant's Specification at [0027]. This system seeks to identify intervention input rules that are causing downstream problems and flag them (or override them, potentially) by monitoring the Bouvriest available price class for a specific airline (can limit to a specific market) and looking for variations (e.g., jumps, peaks, troughs, etc.) in price and determining whether those variations are intended. Id. at [0028]. The system further details the end-to-end pipeline, including iterative availability computations, capturing data used to compute availability (dynamic pricing, intervention input, RMS), aggregating specific metrics, detecting variation events, and providing the computation data via a GUI. Id. at [0029]. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, these recitations integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application that improves the functioning of the availability determination UI and system by providing driver-decomposed, class-granular attribution and threshold-triggered alerts, thereby addressing UI staleness/confusion and root-cause opacity in multi-driver availability pipelines. Therefore, each rejected claim recites a particular combination of additional elements that define a specific improvement over prior art systems. Thus, each of the rejected claims as a whole integrates any purported judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. [RESPONSE] trading tech improve analyst not the GUI. notifications.
The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim 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. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the interface provides an analyst with availability information to facilitate the selection of pricing strategies, which improvise the business process of selecting pricing strategies but does not improve computers or technology. Triggering an alert does not amount to a practical application. See Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Two of the six identified functions—monitoring the location of a mobile thing and notifying a party in advance of arrival of that mobile thing—amount to nothing more than the fundamental business practice of providing advance notification of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing. As the district court correctly noted, “business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods have existed at least for several decades, if not longer.” Id. at 7 (quoting Mobile Telecomms. Techs., 173 F. Supp. 3d at 1331)”).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Step 2B: Patent Eligible under the "Significantly More Test"
Similar to the claims held patent eligible by the Federal Circuit in BASCOM, none of the rejected claims merely apply a judicial exception to generic computer components. Rather, each of the rejected claims contain an "inventive" concept that may at least be found in a non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of operations being performed in a specified manner to provide a process to allow different systems (e.g., travel provider systems, foreign exchange systems, payment systems, etc.) to implement a payment consolidation process as features in an exchange payment platform system. In particular, the specific ordered combination of concurrent source-specific traces, class-level attribution pane, and threshold-based alerting tied to computed "availability computation variation data" has not been shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art. The Office Action relies only on generic component citations and does not identify this combination as conventional. For example, the particular combination of features and elements recited by the amended claims facilitates a specific improvement for implementing a process that provides a particular graphical user interface that structures, attributes, and renders availability computation outputs in a specific, claimed manner. More specifically, this technology includes a process that shows to the analyst the contribution on the final availability of the different products in order to identify quickly any anomalies and solve them by adjusting the faulting process. For example, the optimization is based on a decision support tool, e.g., a user interface (UI) that shows what effect pricing strategies (from revenue management, dynamic pricing, and intervention input) are having on available price ranges (e.g., booking classes) that are made available to end users for each departure date. An alert can be sent to the airline when a change in available booking class is logged that is over a specific threshold. See, e.g., Applicant's Specification at [0027]. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea (a point not conceded), the claimed invention integrates the building blocks of human ingenuity into significantly more by applying that alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way, and thus is directed to patentable subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed interface provides an analyst with availability information to facilitate the selection of pricing strategies, which improvise the business process of selecting pricing strategies but does not improve computers or technology. The court has held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, the court held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly "assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly," the court held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.' Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
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 1-6, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 13-18 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 13, and 20, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of predicting the future availability of a travel provider for future departure dates and providing the calculated availability, which is a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, and a mental process. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting computing availability data for future departure dates and computing variation data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting determining availability of a travel provider for a future departure date. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting evaluating availability of a travel provider for a future departure date where identifying travel provider availability is identifying supply that can be sold. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing future travel information and evaluating availability of a travel provider for a future departure date. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, and mental process of “predicting the future availability of a travel provider for future departure dates and providing the calculated availability,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving an availability request, obtaining future travel information associated with a travel provider, determining availability computation data, determining availability computation variation data, accepting user input, providing a graphical display of the availability computations, and providing an alert mechanism. The mere nominal recitation of an availability determination server, a user device, an availability user interface, a processor, a memory device, and a non-transitory computer readable medium does not take the claim of the mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 6, 9-11, and 18, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: obtaining additional future travel information, determining additional availability computation data, determining whether an alert threshold has been exceeded, updating the availability interface, , determining that the particular intervention input strategy causes an event, determining a lowest available price class, and identifying variation events.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the additional elements: an availability determination server, a user device, an availability user interface, a processor, a memory device, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These availability determination server, user device, availability user interface, processor, memory device, and non-transitory computer readable medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually these 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of predicting travel inventory 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 travel planning process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting an availability determination server, a user device, an availability user interface, a processor, a memory device, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an availability determination server (Specification [0063]), a user device (Specification [0031]), an availability user interface (Specification [0029]), a processor (Specification [0063], [0075]), a memory device (Specification [0074]), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Specification [0074]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an availability determination server, a user device, a processor, a memory device, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The claims limit the field of use by reciting travel providers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 12, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 12 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting updating a user interface. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2-5 and 14-17, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Bouvrie et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0409572 A1), Eren et al. (U.S. 12,387,084 B1), Mohanty et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0166355 A1), and Behlouli et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0193799 A1).
Bouvrie discloses a system for predicting flight pricing data as discussed in prior office actions.
Eren discloses developing an optimal pricing strategy for seats on a flight, but does not provide a concurrent comparison view of the pricing strategies (Eren Col. 13 Lines 18-34).
Mohanty discloses comparing different pricing strategies, but does not discuss availability impacts or flights (Mohanty [0069], Table Z).
Behlouli discloses determining availability of different travel products through availability requests and comparing rate strategies to competitors, but does not provide a comparison view of the impact of pricing strategies on availability (Behlouli [0077], [0115], [0175]).
It would not have been obvious to combine the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the combination of limitaitons that includes “a graphical display of the availability computation variation data that concurrently renders, for the provided time frame: pricing strategies associated with revenue management system availability, dynamic pricing, and the particular intervention input strategy, together with a selectable list of booking classes and a detail pane configured to present, for a selected booking class, a breakdown of availability impacts attributable to the revenue management system availability, the dynamic pricing, and the particular intervention input strategy, and a comparison of availability results.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eren et al. (U.S. 12,387,084 B1)
Mohanty et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0166355 A1)
Behlouli et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0193799 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628