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 Claim
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception as claim 1 does not recite subject matter that is a mathematical concept, organizes human activity, or mental processes. Rather than reciting mental processes as asserted by the Examiner, claim 1 is directed to a system in which one more processors are configured to collect customer data from external data sources; process the collected customer data using a machine learning algorithm or natural language processing to determine and extract customer insights related to at least one of destination preferences, seasonal travel patterns, chosen accommodation, activities, or culinary choices during travel associated with one or more customers; and deliver at least a portion of the extracted customer insights to an internal dashboard or external digital platform. The one or more processors are additionally configured to generate one or more customer recommendations based on the extracted customer insights and real-time supply and inventory data of travel services; and to at least one of: deliver customer recommendations to an internal dashboard and/or an external digital platform; or present customer an internal dashboard and/or an external digital platform; or present customer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong I of Step 2A is aimed at establishing whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. The presence of computer elements has no bearing at this step, instead it comes to play during Prong II analysis, A human can mentally or with the aid of pen and paper gather data on customers, turn those gathered data points into insights such as destination preferences, travel patterns, etc. and present recommendations to one or more customers based on the available data. In fact, this is not a problem rooted in computer technology since humans like travel agents for example have done that long before the advent of IoT or computers.
The applicant asserts that details of the claimed elements impose meaningful limits on any potential judicial exception. Furthermore, the Applicant submits that the claims as a whole do integrate any purported judicial exception into a practical application of that exception as the claims do in fact impose meaningful limits on any potential judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Further, mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is no improvement technology which is made evident by the use of commercially available tools such as those provided by AWS, per ¶65-84.
Further, collecting (i.e. transmitting) customer data reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see 2106.05(g).
Regarding, “real-time”, “Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to “anonymous loan shopping”, which was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase “mental processes” should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim… Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include:… A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1…” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 11 do not represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claims “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps performed by the claims, are accomplished in a non-conventional way.
35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “one or more processors configured to execute instructions and to: collect customer data from at least one of a plurality of external data sources, where each external data source comprises customer data related to at least one of a customer profile, customer travel history, one or more customer-defined preferences, or digital activity; process the collected customer data and extract one or more customer insights, wherein the collected customer data is processed utilizing patterns and preferences identified in the collected customer data using at least one of a machine learning algorithm or natural language processing to determine and extract at least one of destination preferences, seasonal travel patterns, chosen accommodation, activities, or culinary choices during travel associated with one or more customers; deliver at least a portion of the extracted one or more customer insights to at least one of an internal dashboard for display or an external digital platform; and generate one or more customer recommendations based on the extracted one or more customer insights and real-time supply and inventory data of travel services; and at least one of: deliver at least a portion of the one or more customer recommendations to at least one of the internal dashboard or the external digital platform; or present at least a portion of the one or more customer recommendations on a user interface of a computing device”. Claim 11 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 11 are directed to “Mental Process” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will 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 judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶35-37 “Hardware Implementation: Each step in the process is executed by servers at the service provider, equipped with processing circuitry and memory. These servers store and execute the necessary instructions to carry out the described processes. The consumer's phone, or device, running a designated application, initiates the sharing of data and interacts with the service provider's servers, enabling the secure transfer and processing of information. Servers and consumer devices, are integral to the implementation of this technology. FIG 3. Is a data processing system comprising a Mobile App (300) and Web App (301) for user interaction, enabling data upload and access. The system includes a photo library module (302) for collecting images and videos from user devices, facilitating data or visual analysis and pattern recognition. It also features a calendar module (303) for extracting event data, appointments, and schedules, to understand user activities and patterns over time. Additionally, the system has an email integration module (304) for retrieving emails, attachments, and metadata from user email accounts, enabling context analysis and extraction of actionable insights. A social media module (305) aggregates data from social media platforms, including posts, check-ins, interactions, and metadata, for analyzing user behavior, preferences, and trends. An accommodation data module (306) collects data related to user stays, reviews, preferences, and booking history from platforms like Airbnb, aiding in understanding user travel patterns and preferences. There is also an additional data aggregation module (307) for compiling data from other platforms and resources, providing a comprehensive view of user activities and interests”.
As a result, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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.
Claims 3,4, 6-10, 13, 14, and 16-20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, and 16--19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20200380426 to Schlank et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schlank”) in view of US 20180129945 to Saxena et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Saxena”).
(A) As per Claims 1 and 11:
Schlank expressly discloses:
one or more processors configured to execute instructions and to: collect customer data from at least one of a plurality of external data sources, where each external data source comprises customer data related to at least one of a customer profile, customer travel history, one or more customer-defined preferences, or digital activity; (Schlank ¶24-25 the user device 102 may allow a user to access a user interface for inputting user data such as profile information and travel preferences, viewing travel recommendations, and selecting a travel itinerary).
deliver at least a portion of the extracted one or more customer insights to at least one of an internal dashboard for display or an external digital platform; (Schlank ¶37, 43 receiving a calendar entry 202 may include receiving event data, such as an event time, location, and duration directly from a user via a user interface. Moreover, the system may include a user interface accessible via a user device and the user profile module may prompt the user to provide the identity information, payment information, and at least one travel preference via the user interface).
generate one or more customer recommendations based on the extracted one or more customer insights and real-time supply and inventory data of travel services; (Schlank ¶22 the travel booking system 100 may be configured for suggesting, recommending, and/or booking airfare, hotel accommodations, ground transportation services, and/or other travel services. The travel booking system 100 may suggest, recommend, and/or book such travel services based on a user's planned trips as determined from the user's calendar entries).
at least one of: deliver at least a portion of the one or more customer recommendations to at least one of the internal dashboard or the external digital platform;
present at least a portion of the one or more customer recommendations on a user interface of a computing device; (Schlank ¶22 the travel booking system 100 may recommend or suggest the travel services to the user via a user interface, and in some embodiments, the system may book or facilitate booking one or more travel services).
Although Schlank teaches systems and methods for onboarding a user of a travel booking system, it doesn’t expressly disclose performing customer data gathering by machine learning or NLP in order to determine customers’ preferences, however Saxena teaches:
process the collected customer data and extract one or more customer insights, wherein the collected customer data is processed utilizing patterns and preferences identified in the collected customer data using at least one of a machine learning algorithm or natural language processing to determine and extract at least one of destination preferences, seasonal travel patterns, chosen accommodation, activities, or culinary choices during travel associated with one or more customers; (Saxena ¶160-164 as used herein, a declared 1004 cognitive learning style broadly refers to the use of declarative data by a CILS to perform a corresponding cognitive learning operation. In various embodiments, the declarative data may be processed by the CILS as a statement, an assertion, or a verifiable fact. For example, an electronic medical record (EMR) may contain declarative data asserting that John Smith has Type 1 diabetes, which is a verifiable fact. As another example, a user may explicitly make a declarative statement that they do not like sushi. natural language processing (NLP) approaches known to those of skill in the art are implemented by the CILS during the performance of cognitive learning operations to determine the context in which the word “haircut” is used. As an example, a user's selection of a particular accommodation in a resort area during a holiday may result in an inference they prefer staying at a bed and breakfast while on personal travel. Likewise, the selection of a four-star accommodation in a downtown area on a weekday may result in an inference the same user prefers a luxury hotel while on business travel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Schlank’s system includes a user interface accessible via a user device and perform a corresponding cognitive learning operation using NLP of Saxena as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having the user profile module prompt the user to provide the identity information, payment information, and at least one travel preference via the user interface as taught in Schlank and extract a user's selection of a particular accommodation in a resort area during a holiday may result in an inference they prefer staying at a bed and breakfast while on personal travel as taught in Saxena.
Schlank teaches methos for preferences and automated profile creation in the Abstract.
(C) As per Claims 4 and 14:
Schlank expressly discloses:
wherein the one or more customer recommendations are presented on the user interface of the computing device via at least one of a web application, a mobile app, or through integration with an external platform; (Schlank ¶24 the user device 102 may allow a user to access a user interface for inputting user data such as profile information and travel preferences, viewing travel recommendations, and selecting a travel itinerary. The user interface, described in more detail below, may be or include a program, application, or web-based interface).
(D) As per Claims 6 and 16:
Schlank expressly discloses:
wherein the customer-defined preferences comprise at least one of preferred dates, budget constraints, past preferences, current trends, or other preferences or insights; (Schlank ¶26 user profile data may additionally include a user's travel preferences, such as preferred travel service providers. Preferences may include, for example, flight preferences, such as preferences for particular flight times, preferences for a minimum or maximum number of stops or length of layovers, preferences for seat selection or seat class, and/or other flight preferences. Preferences may include hotel preferences, such as a preference for room type or size).
(E) As per Claims 7 and 17:
Schlank expressly discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the customer data is collected from photo metadata of photos from customer devices; (Schlank ¶29 in some embodiments, the user profile module 110 may be configured to extract text from photographs. For example, the user profile module 110 may be configured to recognize and extract text related to the user's identity from a photo of the user's driver's license).
(F) As per Claims 8 and 18:
Schlank expressly discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the customer data is data collected from calendar data from customer devices; (Schlank ¶31 the calendar module 112 may further be configured with hardware and/or software to extract travel parameters from calendar event details. For example, the calendar module 112 may analyze event details to determine whether an event includes or requires travel, whether airplane, train, bus, or other travel modes may be suitable, whether a hotel stay may be required or desired, and/or whether a car service or rental car may be desired or required).
(G) As per Claims 9 and 19:
Schlank expressly discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the customer data is at least one of location information from customer devices, data collected from email data from customer devices, or consumer-based applications on customer devices; (Schlank ¶37 in one embodiment, an event location associated with the calendar entry may be compared with the user's location, which may be previously identified or may be determined based on geolocation of the user's device. If the comparison shows that the event location for the calendar entry includes a different city or state than the user's location, for example, it may be determined that the user may desire travel services).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20200380426 to Schlank et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schlank”) in view of US 20180129945 to Saxena et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Saxena”) in further view of US 20220058550 to Thakker (hereinafter referred to as “Thakker”).
(A) As per Claims 3 and 13:
Although Schlank in view of Saxena teaches systems and methods for onboarding a user of a travel booking system, it doesn’t expressly disclose real-time inventory data for hotels, flights, activities, restaurants, experiences, events or attractions, however Thakker teaches:
wherein the real-time supply and inventory data comprises at least one of hotels, flights, activities, restaurants, experiences, events or attractions; (Thakker ¶19 displaying the real-time inventory of the one or more event venues, rooms and services comprises displaying, an inventory of the one or more event venues, an inventory of rooms, an inventory of one or more menus of food and beverages, an inventory of one or more customizable seating arrangements, and an inventory of one or more service vendors).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Schlank in view of Saxena’s system includes a user interface accessible via a user device and display the real-time inventory of the one or more event venues, rooms and services of Thakker as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having the user profile module prompt the user to provide the identity information, payment information, and at least one travel preference via the user interface as taught in Schlank in view of Saxena and display an inventory of one or more customizable seating arrangements, and an inventory of one or more service vendors as taught in Thakker.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20200380426 to Schlank et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schlank”) in further view of US 20180129945 to Saxena et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Saxena”) in view of US 20220058550 to Planson (hereinafter referred to as “Planson”).
(A) As per Claims 5 and 15:
Although Schlank in view of Saxena teaches systems and methods for onboarding a user of a travel booking system, it doesn’t expressly disclose an AI chat interface, however Planson teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: interact with a customer via an artificial intelligence (AI) chat interface to at least one of collect additional customer data, clarify customer-defined preferences, or provide at least a portion of the one or more customer recommendations; (Planson ¶138 the intelligent passenger safety interaction function 504 may facilitate the provision of an AI-trained chatbot 510 that allows for the passenger to ask questions and provide an immediate response. Through the voice analytics channel 514, there may also be provided the ability to detect anxiety within the passenger's voice and consequently will trigger an intervention from the autonomous safety team 516 via live chat or a call. That is, the system may monitor the voice of passengers within a vehicle and in dependence on characteristics of that voice selectively activate a communication channel with the autonomous safety team 516).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Schlank in view of Saxena’s system includes a user interface accessible via a user device and have an AI-trained chatbot that allows for the passenger to ask questions and provide an immediate response of Planson as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having the user profile module prompt the user to provide the identity information, payment information, and at least one travel preference via the user interface as taught in Schlank in view of Saxena and have the system monitor the voice of passengers within a vehicle and in dependence on characteristics of that voice selectively activate a communication channel with the autonomous safety team as taught in Planson.
Claims 10 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20200380426 to Schlank et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Schlank”) in view of US 20180129945 to Saxena et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Saxena”) in further view of US 20140095223 to Oxenham et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Oxenham”).
(A) As per Claims 10 and 20:
Although Schlank in view of Saxena teaches systems and methods for onboarding a user of a travel booking system, it doesn’t expressly disclose displaying a visualized planet with data related to the customer, however Oxenham teaches:
generate and display on the user interface of the computing device a visualized planet comprising information related to collected customer data relating to a specific customer; (Oxenham ¶53-54 Moving now to FIGS. 5A-5F, a series of screenshots of exemplary service provider pages depicting graphical representations of a video progression using Google Earth are provided. Screenshots 500, 510 and 520 depict the progression of selecting and showing a selected venue with respect to a zoomed out global view to start. For example, a user may decide to select seats that are fairly inexpensive in Section 319 as shown in listing 610. The overhead 2D map 620 can then show where Section 319 is, while the interactive 3D map 630 can also show what the view looks like from that section).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Schlank in view of Saxena’s system includes a user interface accessible via a user device and have graphical representations of a video progression using Google Earth of Oxenham as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having the user profile module prompt the user to provide the identity information, payment information, and at least one travel preference via the user interface as taught in Schlank in view of Saxena and have a user select seats that are fairly inexpensive in Section 319 as shown in listing 610 as taught in Oxenham.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights