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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 02/20/2026 is entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination on merits. Claims 1, 14 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, and claims 15-19 depend from claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2.1. Claims 1--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-13 are to a system /apparatus, and claims 14-19 are to process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Claim 20, as analyzed above, is non-statutory.
Step 2A Analysis:
1 (Currently Amended). A system for providing an immersive simulation [[of]] for an itinerary, the system comprising:
memory storing instructions; and at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to a network and configured to execute the instructions to:
(i) acquire historical transaction data of a financial account for storage in a database of the system;
(ii) provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account
(iii) receive triggering data indicating a transaction [[of]] involving the financial account for a product and/or service;
(iv) generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary;
(v) generate the immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program
(vi) generate a link to the immersive simulation that is executable by a device; and
(vii) provide at least one package over the network, the at least one package including the link and a cost associated with the itinerary.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
Reference claim 1, the highlighted limitations “a system/process for providing an itinerary, acquire historical transaction data of a financial account , such as that of a credit card expenses including travel and vacations expenses, generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least a trained model , wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary; and provide at least one package the at least one package including a cost associated with the itinerary”, relate to a commercial activity of selling/providing itineraries for tours based on considering historical credit card [financial account] expenses , which fall into “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Also, the limitations, “provide the historical transaction data to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account , generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary”; under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For, example, a persona looking at collected financial account , such as a credit card expenses data on past travels can decide what future travel itinerary can be recommended and for that a person can also manually train a model using expenses patterns to flag the expenses for travels and tours and from that data can infer the type of expenses done for specific destinations or types of vacations to make recommendations . That is, other than reciting “by a computer processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 also recites a mental process.
Since the other independent claims 14 rand 20 recite similar limitations as discussed for claim 1, it is analyzed on the same basis as reciting same abstract ideas.
Since each of the claims 1, 14 and 20 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Thus, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-13, claim 14 with its dependent claims 15-19, and claim 20 recite Abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong One=Yes].
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic computer components comprising one or more processors executing the following steps: (i)acquire historical transaction data of a financial account for storage in a database of the system; (ii)provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account; (iii) receive triggering data indicating a transaction involving the financial account for a product and/or service; (iv) generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary; (v) generate the immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program; (vi) generate a link to the immersive simulation that is executable by a device; and (vii) provide at least one package over the network, the at least one package including the link and a cost associated with the itinerary.
The additional elements in steps (i), (ii), (iii), and (vii) “ (i)acquire historical transaction data of a financial account for storage in a database of the system; (ii)provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform; (iii) receive triggering data indicating a transaction involving the financial account for a product and/or service; vii) provide at least one package over the network, the at least one package including the link and a cost associated with the itinerary.”, are mere data gathering , storing, and providing/output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and providing/output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. These limitations are recited using a processor. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality. In these limitations the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving/storing/ and providing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements in the steps “( ii)provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account; and (iv) generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary;”; are performed by a computer processor. The computer processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
The additional elements in the steps (v) and (vi) implemented a processor “(v) generate the immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program; (vi) generate a link to the immersive simulation that is executable by a device;” , as drafted, are a long standing practice of using computers to provide immersive simulation for products or services and providing links to them on a browser before the effective date of the claimed invention and these additional elements do not provide details reflecting an improvement on linking and providing immersive simulation on long standing practice. The recitation of “using immersive simulation a link to immersive simulation” in limitations of steps (iv) and (v) merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (immersive simulation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, the limitations recited in steps (iv) and (v) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the limitations do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Since the limitations of the other independent claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, 15-16 recite non-functional data as what the computer system includes such as a screen, headset for AI, data storage, chat interface and what does the itinerary package includes along with reciting steps for gathering data and generating recommendations which are mere extension of the scope discussed for claim 1, and , as analyzed above, are non-significant extra-solution activity and abstract ideas. The limitations of acquiring data in real time in claims 5, 7 and 16, and limitations in claims 10 -11using simulations to display graphical objects representing graphical representations of objects which can include items, such as airline seats, cabins , hotel rooms, are long standing practices being used before the effective date of the claimed invention. These limitations, as drafted, using acquiring real time data are in a nominal manner, and do not reflect an improvement in a technical field. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a long practiced concept and fails to add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations in claims 12-13 and 19 recite applying mathematical concepts of classification algorithms, clustering algorithms for detecting spams, fraud, and grouping similar data , and using User Based Collaborative Filtering (UBCF) process and/or an Item Based Collaborative Filtering (IBCF) merely indicate applying mathematical concepts abstract ideas.
Limitations in claims 8-9, and 17-18 are directed to generating cost in one or more of rewards points, a digital currency, and a fiat currency, which can be done manually and limitations of providing at least one package over the network as one or more of an email, a text, and a notification is mere data providing which is non-significant extra-solution activity.
Thus, dependent claims 2-13, and 15-19, as analyzed above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements of receiving data, providing data, displaying data and storing data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting /displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Further, the use of immersive simulation in the claims amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, storing and displaying steps and use of immersive simulation are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Response to Arguments
3.1. In view of the current amendment to claim 20, the non-statutory rejection is now moot and withdrawn.
3.2. Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 , see pages 11-19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments are primarily targeted to the limitations “provide, by at least one computer processor, historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with a financial account; generate, by the at least one computer processor, one or more personalized recommendations associated with a product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model; or generate, by the at least one computer processor, an immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program”, stating that these steps “integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 14 actually recites a computer- implemented method for providing an immersive simulation for an itinerary over a network comprising the following steps, which set forth a solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks: “.
Examiner respectfully disagrees , because the limitations, “a computer performing to provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account, and to generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary; when analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One analysis do “set forth” and “describe” a mental process. The limitations comprising provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account and then generate one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary can be done manually as well as by applying known technology such as computers and artificial intelligence. Executing these steps relate to processing data to analyze and provide product recommendations to a user and do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually. For, example, a person looking at collected financial account , such as a credit card expenses data on past travels can decide what future travel itinerary can be recommended and for that a person can also manually train a data model using expenses patterns to flag the expenses for travels and tours and from that data can infer the type of expenses done for specific destinations or types of vacations to make recommendations. That is, other than reciting “by a computer processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor and using artificial intelligence does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] II. MENTAL PROCESSES: claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); • a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Further, when these limitations , “ “ provide, by at least one computer processor, historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with a financial account; generate, by the at least one computer processor, one or more personalized recommendations associated with a product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model are analyzed per steps2A, and Prong Two and Step 2B the computer processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and do not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “Significantly More” .
The limitations, “ generate, by the at least one computer processor, an immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program, as presently claimed.”, have not been analyzed by Examiner under Step 2A, prong one but have been analyzed under steps 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. These limitations, as drafted, merely recite the use of immersive simulation applied to virtual reality concept without providing details on any technical improvements over the existing practice . See for evidence references cited: (i) Karaaslan et al. [US 20210174492 A1, see “ Brief Description of the Prior Art: [0003] The use of virtual reality (VR) is well-known as a computer simulated replication of a physical or imaginary environment, with a user being able to experience and interact with the simulation through an immersive technology. Typically, VR replaces the user's physical world with a completely virtual environment and isolates the user's sensory receptors (eyes and ears) from the real, physical world [1]. The VR is observed through a system that displays the objects and allows interaction, thus creating virtual presence [2]. Nowadays, VR headsets have gained vast popularity, especially in gaming industry. [0004] Augmented reality (AR), on the other hand, is an integrated technique that typically leverages image processing, real-time computing, motion tracking, pattern recognition, image projection, and feature extraction to render a visual reality.”] and earlier cited references: (ii) WO 2016/189370A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [See para 0026] describes that Virtual reality, as is known in the art, can be referred to as immersive multimedia or computer-simulated reality, and attempts to simulate a physical presence in places in the real world or an imagined world, allowing the user to interact in that world, and can, in certain embodiments, create sensory experiences, which can include sight, hearing, touch, and smell, and (iii) WU [US 20179153483 A1; see para 0004] cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 describes that known VR [Virtual Reality] display technology also known as immersive multimedia or computer-simulated reality technology is getting increased attention, where the VR technology replicates an environment, real or imagined, simulates a user's physical presence in the environment, and provides immersive experience. Thus, using immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program, as presently claimed is in a very nominal manner without providing any details reflecting a technical improvement over the existing practice. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The other limitations comprising “ acquire historical transaction data of a financial account for storage in a database of the system; (ii)provide the historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform; (iii) receive triggering data indicating a transaction involving the financial account for a product and/or service; vii) provide at least one package over the network, the at least one package including the link and a cost associated with the itinerary.”, are mere data gathering , storing, and providing/output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding generating a link on a web page for accessing any program or data such as immersive simulation is a generic computer function previously known to the industry.
Additionally, the Applicant’s argument that the limitations , for example of claim 1, are similar to those of Enfish and McRO are not persuasive. In Enfish the claims were not directed to an abstract idea as they were directed to configuring a computer for creating a new database table resulting in improvements to computer operations which is an improvement on the existing database technology including a single table opposed to a standard model where each entry is in a separate table, including faster search times and smaller memory requirements. In the instant Application the claims are not directed to any improvement in computer operations but instead directed to an abstract idea of providing business solution related to a commercial activity of selling/providing itineraries for tours based on considering historical credit card [financial account] expenses , applying previously known technologies of using generic computer and virtual reality for immersive simulation without including any details reflecting technical improvements on use of virtual reality including immersive simulation of recommendations and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and add an inventive concept.
In McRO the patents aim to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks, specifically, determining when to set key frames and setting those key frames. This automation is accomplished through rules that are applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs. The patents describe many exemplary rule sets that go beyond simply matching single phonemes from the timed transcript with the appropriate morph target. Instead, these rule sets aim to produce more realistic speech by “tak[ing] into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.” This claimed process is technological because it provides “a method for getting a computer to automatically generate video of a 3-D animated character speaking in sync with pre-recorded dialogue—without requiring an artist’s constant intermediation.” In contrast the claims in the instant application do not provide improved rules and “merely implement an old practice of in a new technical environment directed to providing business solution related to a commercial activity of selling/providing itineraries for tours based on considering historical credit card [financial account] expenses , applying previously known technologies of using generic computer and virtual reality for immersive simulation without including any details reflecting technical improvements on use of virtual reality including immersive simulation of recommendations and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and add an inventive concept.
Since the limitations of the other independent claim 14 are similar to claim 1, the above Examiner’s response is applicable to it.
Applicant has not filed separate arguments against dependent claims 2-13, and 15-20.
In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s arguments , see pages 11-19, are not found persuasive and the rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
4. Prior art discussion:
Reference claims 1, 14 and 20, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising one or more processors executing the steps of “providing historical transaction data to an enterprise artificial intelligence (Al) platform to train at least one data model that characterizes usage patterns associated with the financial account, receiving triggering data indicating a transaction involving the financial account for a product and/or service, generating one or more personalized recommendations associated with the product and/or service based on the at least one trained data model, wherein the one or more personalized recommendations are included in an itinerary, and generating the immersive simulation including the one or more personalized recommendations, the immersive simulation including a simulation program that is at least one
of a Virtual Reality program, an Augmented Reality program, and a Mixed Reality program”. Claims 2-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively.
5. Allowability: .
If the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 are amended to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106, the application can be placed in condition for allowance. However, all amendments will be subject to reconsideration and search
6. The references which are pertinent to the claimed invention but not considered:
(i) Kumar et al. [US 9619831 B1, see col.14, lines 43-58 and col.20, line 62-col.21, lie 4] describes an analysis module 218 configured to harmonize the transaction information from various merchant financial payment instruments, e.g., different payment cards or electronic payment accounts, etc., and apply one or more probabilistic models of buyer profiles and respective transactions for determining item recommendations for the merchants for cross-selling.
(ii) Morin et al. [US 10,706, 453 B1; see col.16, lines 38-65] describes a financial attribute extraction model 155 trained to extract any financial attribute data [credit cards data] from the transaction data and credit history data such as, but not limited to, financial attribute data indicating historical transaction amounts, etc.
(iii) Gupta et al. cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [US 20250321116 A1, see Abstract and para 0052] describes interactively and virtually exploring geographic areas during travel wherein the interactive system 170 creates audiovisual content and virtual information of the area for various modes that accurately simulate touring and time-travel for immersive experiences.
Foreign reference:
(iv) WO 2016/189370A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [See para 0026] describes that Virtual reality, as is known in the art, can be referred to as immersive multimedia or computer-simulated reality, and attempts to simulate a physical presence in places in the real world or an imagined world, allowing the user to interact in that world, and can, in certain embodiments, create sensory experiences, which can include sight, hearing, touch, and smell. In an exemplary embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 1, virtual reality headset 1 12 can include a mounting area 124, a viewing area 128, control knobs 132, and a head strap 136.
NPL references:
(v) L. Soni and A. Kaur, "Immersive Journeys: Unveiling Historical Places through Virtual Reality," 2023 International Conference on System, Computation, Automation and Networking (ICSCAN), PUDUCHERRY, India, 2023, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com on 11132025, cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [ See Abstract] describes an immersive method of researching the Historical Places using Virtual Reality (VR), which enables them travel across time and experience the sights, sounds, and histories of well-known historical landmarks and are able to explore virtual surroundings, engage with artifacts, and take in crucial events using VR headgear, controllers, and haptic feedback devices. The VR technology and the immersive simulation or development of a three-dimensional world allows for human interact and exploration using specialized headsets or other gadgets, giving them a sensory experience that may include sight, sound, and even touch.
(vi) B. Mallikarjuna, S. Sebastian, R. Chandra, P. Dadheech and M. Sharma, "Virtual Reality in Tourism Industry within the Framework of Virtual Reality Markup Language," 2024 IEEE 3rd World Conference on Applied Intelligence and Computing (AIC), Gwalior, India, 2024, pp. 274-279, retrieved from IP. Com on 11132025, cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [see Abstract] describes that Virtual Reality (VR) technology has grown and emerged in the tourism industry offering immersive and interactive experiences, VR has transformed how people discover and interact with the VRML and people interact with different destinations. The article says that VR can improve travel experiences, aid in destination planning, preserve cultural heritage, support adventure tourism, and revolutionize destination marketing.
(vii) WU cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [US 20179153483 A1; see para 0004] describes that known VR [Virtual Reality] display technology also known as immersive multimedia or computer-simulated reality technology is getting increased attention, where the VR technology replicates an environment, real or imagined, simulates a user's physical presence in the environment, and provides immersive experience.
Foreign references:
(viii)) KR 102222392 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 [see Technical Field] describes generating and recommending appropriate products to customers based on credit card usage history.
Conclusion
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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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 A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688