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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9-15 in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are canceled. Claims 21-33 are new claims. Claims 9-15 and 21-33 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29 -31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation that the plurality of objects represent a plurality of accommodation locations, wherein the query comprises a time range, wherein the means for solving the CSP comprises means for determining sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability. The italicized portion of the limitation uses the terminology “means for” and is modified by functional language, but lacks sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The closest portion of the specification found pertaining to the limitation is [0297] which discloses to build the plan index comprises to determine sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability. This portion of the specification while disclosing the function, does not disclose sufficient structure for performing the function.
Claim 30 recites the limitation that the means for solving the CSP comprises means for determining two or more accommodation locations that have a combined availability that satisfies the time range, wherein the means for providing the one or more objects to the user comprises means for providing the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range as expressed by the CSP. The italicized portion of the limitation uses the terminology “means for” and is modified by functional language, but lacks sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The closest portion of the specification found pertaining to the limitation is [0298] which discloses determining two or more accommodation locations that have a combined availability that satisfies the time range. This portion of the specification while disclosing the function, does not disclose sufficient structure for performing the function.
Claim 31 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to dependency on the rejected claim(s) above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “means for determining sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability” in claim 29 , and “means for providing the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range as expressed by the CSP” in claim 30 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 31 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to dependency on the rejected claim(s) above.
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 9-15 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9-15 and 27-33 recite a device (i.e. machine), and claims 21-26 recite non-transitory computer-readable media (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 9-15 and 21-33 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 9, 21, and 27 recite the limitations: generate a training corpus for fine-tuning [a large-language model (LLM)], wherein the training corpus comprises a plurality of textual parameters and a plurality of numerical parameters for each of a plurality of objects; fine-tune [the LLM based] on the training corpus; receive a query from a user, wherein the query comprises a one or more required constraints and one or more preferences regarding possible matches the plurality of objects, wherein the query is formed in natural language; transform, with use of [the LLM], the query from the user into a formal constraint satisfaction problem (CSP); solve the CSP to determine one or more objects of the plurality of objects that satisfy the CSP; and provide the one or more objects to the user. The invention and claims are drawn towards enabling a visitor to find optimal accommodation for customer satisfaction while also allowing the host to maximize profit, and the claim limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions; commercial interactions, business relations), such as receiving a query from a user, wherein the query comprises a one or more required constraints and one or more preferences regarding possible matches the plurality of objects, wherein the query is formed in natural language; transforming with use of [the LLM], the query from the user into a formal constraint satisfaction problem (CSP); solving the CSP to determine one or more objects of the plurality of objects that satisfy the CSP; and providing the one or more objects to the user. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as shown by the limitations generating a training corpus for fine-tuning an LLM, fine-tuning the LLM based on the training corpus, transforming the query from the user into a formal constraint satisfaction problem (CSP), and solving the CSP to determine one or more objects of the plurality of objects that satisfy the CSP. These limitations directly involved the observation and evaluation of data and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a processor (claim 9), a memory (claim 9), one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (claims 9 and 21), a compute device, and a large-language model (LLM). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the LLM amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10-15, 22-26, and 28-33 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 10-15, 22-26, and 28-33 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 21, 22, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lange (2023/0259714).
Claim 9: A compute device comprising:
a processor; (Lange ¶0007 disclosing one or more processors)
a memory communicatively coupled with the processor; and (Lange ¶0148 disclosing the storage devices being a combination of volatile and non-volatile memory)
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: (Lange ¶0148-¶0149 disclosing non-transitory computer readable medium capable of storing information; ¶0150 disclosing the instructions can include one or more instructions that when executed by the processor(s), causes the one or more processors to perform actions defined by the instructions)
generate, by a compute device, a training corpus for fine-tuning a large-language model (LLM), wherein the training corpus comprises a plurality of textual parameters and a plurality of numerical parameters for each of a plurality of objects; (Lange ¶0055 disclosing the state handler generates text or speech that will be sent to the user through the user frontend; ¶0039 disclosing upon detecting that the user is requesting to purchase a T-Shirt, the LM can issue an API call that causes the agent to navigate through a sequence of nodes in the conversation graph for receiving information related to purchasing the T-Shirt, such as desired T-Shirt size, color, etc., before confirming the purchase order; state handler sends natural language output to the user through the user frontend, based on predetermined text associated with nodes in the conversation graph; ¶0100 disclosing training the LM until predetermined convergence criteria are met; convergence criteria can include, for example, a maximum number of iterations of backpropagation; other convergence criteria can be based on total number of processing cycles consumed after which training is terminated; see also Table 1)
fine-tune the LLM based on the training corpus; (Lange ¶0043 disclosing the different LMs can be fine-tuned from a base LM, trained generally as described herein for navigating graph or graph-like structures. An LM can be further fine-tuned with session data labeled with API calls for navigating through a previously unseen conversation graph, allowing users to provide their own unique requirements to build a conversational agent capable of addressing user requests in line with the provided graph. A base LM can be a base model trained on natural language, and further trained to generate API calls as output for navigating a conversation graph; The use of a base LM as described herein can allow for specialized LMs to be fine-tuned from the base LM across different domains.)
receive a query from a user, wherein the query comprises a one or more required constraints and one or more preferences regarding possible matches the plurality of objects, wherein the query is formed in natural language; (Lange ¶0034 disclosing tasks can be for example, helping users with technical support, supporting customers in making online purchases of goods or services, or being an on-demand source of information, which can be queried using questions in spoken or written natural language; agent receives user input, for example text indicating that the user would like to make a purchase; to identify the user's request, the agent passes the user input through the LM; ¶0047; ¶0087 disclosing the system receives user input, according to block 310. The user input can be natural language, for example in text or in speech)
transform, with use of the LLM, the query from the user into a formal constraint satisfaction problem (CSP); (Lange ¶0088 disclosing the system processes the user input through a language model trained to receive the user input and generate one or more function calls; the one or more processors perform one or more predetermined actions associated with a node of a conversation graph specified in the function call; see also Fig. 2B illustrating the process where the natural language query is input (that the user would like to order a T-shirt), the LM transforms the query into a constraint problem (“setAction(‘OrderTshirt’)”, and subsequently after another natural language input, the LM transforming the query into a SCP (“ACTION=’OrderTShirt’, color=?))
solve the CSP to determine one or more objects of the plurality of objects that satisfy the CSP; and (Lange Fig. 2B further disclosing solving the previously cited CSP where multiple CSPs are solved until completion at step 298B; ¶0080 LM processes the provided input, according to line 296B and determines that the session can now end, because all of the information required for completing the user request has been provided; LM sends an API call ("done()") to the state handler to cause the state handler to terminate the session; also the objects in this query being a T-shirt with color blue and size large)
provide the one or more objects to the user. (Lange Fig. 2B at step 292B disclosing to the user "Thank you, we have ordered a T-shirt with color blue and size large, Goodbye!”; ¶0153; also note that the agents may also assist users in booking a hotel room or car rental (see ¶0001))
Claims 21 and 27: Claims 21 and 27 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively . Claims 21 and 27 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards a device. Claims 21 and 27 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Claim 10: The compute device of claim 9, wherein to solve the CSP comprises to solve the CSP with use of the LLM. (Lange Fig. 2B further disclosing solving the previously cited CSP where multiple CSPs are solved until completion at step 298B; ¶0080 LM processes the provided input, according to line 296B and determines that the session can now end, because all of the information required for completing the user request has been provided; LM sends an API call ("done()") to the state handler to cause the state handler to terminate the session; also the objects in this query being a T-shirt with color blue and size large)
Claims 22 and 28 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively. Claims 22 and 28 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards a device. Claims 22 and 28 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-13, 23-25, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (2023/0259714) in view of Ahn (2022/0398508).
Claim 11: The compute device of claim 9,
wherein the plurality of objects represent a plurality of accommodation locations, wherein the query comprises a time range, wherein to solve the CSP comprises to determine sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability.
While Lange discloses the details of the LLM and indicates that the agents used in the system may also be used to book a hotel room, etc., Lange does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of objects represent a plurality of accommodation locations, wherein the query comprises a time range, wherein to solve the CSP comprises to determine sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability. Ahn suggests or discloses this limitation and also discloses a similar use of machine learning models: (Ahn ¶0041 disclosing vacant room information may mean various concepts and items in the room; ¶0051 disclosing information on hotel vacant rooms is requested to the server; ¶0054 discloses the server obtains identification information corresponding to vacant rooms of the plurality of hotels from the plurality of external servers; searches for a first vacant room that is available within a predetermined period from a check-in date included in the reservation information based on the identification information until before the check-in date; ¶0057 disclosing the server may determine a vacant room that is same as the reserved vacant room from among the first vacant room that is available within the predetermined period from the check-in date; ¶0031 disclosing the server may classify a plurality of hotels by the same hotel from the identification information based on a pre-trained identification model; ¶0032 disclosing the pre-trained identification model may use machine learning; in this case, a deep learning model may be used, and this may be performed using a machine learning model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lange to include that the plurality of objects represent a plurality of accommodation locations, wherein the query comprises a time range, wherein to solve the CSP comprises to determine sets of one or more accommodation locations with overlapping availability as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lange in order to efficiently assist end-users in making reservations for accommodations (see ¶0002 of Ahn).
Claims 23 and 29 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively. Claims 23 and 29 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 11, which is directed towards a device. Claims 23 and 29 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 11.
Claim 12: The compute device of claim 11,
wherein to solve the CSP comprises to determine two or more accommodation locations that have a combined availability that satisfies the time range, wherein to provide the one or more objects to the user comprises to provide the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range as expressed by the CSP.
While Lange discloses the details of the LLM and indicates that the agents used in the system may also be used to book a hotel room, etc., Lange does not explicitly disclose that to solve the CSP comprises to determine two or more accommodation locations that have a combined availability that satisfies the time range, wherein to provide the one or more objects to the user comprises to provide the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range as expressed by the CSP. Ahn suggests or discloses this limitation and also discloses a similar use of machine learning models: (Ahn ¶0029 disclosing the server may obtain identification information corresponding to locations and vacant rooms of a plurality of hotels; rooms may be sorted and displayed for the same hotel on a display, and vacant room prices of a plurality of hotels may be displayed together on the display; ¶0031 discloses that the server may classify a plurality of hotels by the same hotel from the identification information based on a pre-trained identification model; ¶0032 discloses that the pre-trained identification model may use machine learning; a deep learning model may be used, and this may be performed using a machine learning model; ¶0041 disclosing vacant room information may mean various concepts and items in the room; ¶0051 disclosing obtain vacant room information from a plurality of hotels information on hotel vacant rooms is requested to the server through the user terminal, the server may process data based on the identification information and display the vacant room information through the user terminal; ¶0054 disclosing obtains identification information corresponding to vacant rooms of the plurality of hotels; the server searches for a first vacant room that is available within a predetermined period from a check-in date; ¶0060 further disclosing the server searches for vacant rooms of a hotel located within a predetermined distance from the hotel reserved by the user from among first vacant rooms that are available within the predetermined period from the check-in date, determine second vacant rooms similar to the reserved vacant room reserved by the user within a predetermined similarity threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lange to include that to solve the CSP comprises to determine two or more accommodation locations that have a combined availability that satisfies the time range, wherein to provide the one or more objects to the user comprises to provide the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range as expressed by the CSP as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lange in order to efficiently assist end-users in making reservations for accommodations (see ¶0002 of Ahn).
Claims 24 and 30 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively. Claims 24 and 30 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 12, which is directed towards a device. Claims 24 and 30 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 12.
Claim 13: The compute device of claim 12, further comprising:
receive a booking request from the user corresponding to the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range; and create one reservation that includes the two or more accommodations.
While Lange discloses receiving a request for goods and/or services, and indicates that the agents used in the system may also be used to book a hotel room, etc., Lange does not explicitly disclose receive a booking request from the user corresponding to the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range; and create one reservation that includes the two or more accommodations. Ahn suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Ahn ¶0029 disclosing the server may obtain identification information corresponding to locations and vacant rooms of a plurality of hotels; rooms may be sorted and displayed for the same hotel on a display, and vacant room prices of a plurality of hotels may be displayed together on the display; ¶0041 disclosing vacant room information may mean various concepts and items in the room; ¶0051 disclosing obtain vacant room information from a plurality of hotels information on hotel vacant rooms is requested to the server through the user terminal, the server may process data based on the identification information and display the vacant room information through the user terminal; ¶0054 disclosing obtains identification information corresponding to vacant rooms of the plurality of hotels; the server searches for a first vacant room that is available within a predetermined period from a check-in date; ¶0055 disclosing a reservation for the vacant room being conducted; ¶0060 further disclosing the server searches for vacant rooms of a hotel located within a predetermined distance from the hotel reserved by the user from among first vacant rooms that are available within the predetermined period from the check-in date, determine second vacant rooms similar to the reserved vacant room reserved by the user within a predetermined similarity threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lange to include receive a booking request from the user corresponding to the two or more accommodation locations that have the combined availability that satisfies the time range; and create one reservation that includes the two or more accommodations as taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lange in order to efficiently assist end-users in making reservations for accommodations (see ¶0002 of Ahn).
Claims 25 and 31 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively. Claims 25 and 31 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 13, which is directed towards a device. Claims 25 and 31 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 13.
Claim(s) 14, 26, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (2023/0259714) in view of Fishberg (2020/0394728).
Claim 14: The compute device of claim 9,
wherein the query from the user comprises a check-in date, a check-out date, a location of interest, and criteria for amenities.
While Lange discloses receiving a query for goods and/or services, and indicates that the agents used in the system may also be used to book a hotel room, etc., Lange does not explicitly disclose that the query from the user comprises a check-in date, a check-out date, a location of interest, and criteria for amenities. Fishberg suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Fishberg ¶0012 disclosing a system where customers are presented with goods and services matching or related to their query items and are permitted to select and confirm desired feature options and book, reserve or purchase their selection; optionally including the booking of an accommodation such as a room or table at a restaurant as well; ¶0015 disclosing the query including an indication of a desired booking period for an accommodation and an indication of a desired geographic location for a hospitality/travel provider; ¶0016 including a hospitality provider amenity; see also ¶0087 including the request including amenities; ¶0130 disclosing the query including a check-in and check-out date). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lange to include that the query from the user comprises a check-in date, a check-out date, a location of interest, and criteria for amenities as taught by Fishberg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lange in order to provide hospitality/travel and accommodations system that provides customers the option to search and purchase features within or separate from accommodation venues having desired, bookable/ticketable amenities and/or special services and/or food/beverage available for the desired date(s) and time(s) and the additional capability to book/purchase such features with the capability efficiently assist end-users in making reservations for accommodations (see ¶0011 of Fishberg).
Claims 26 and 32 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and a device, respectively. Claims 26 and 32 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 14, which is directed towards a device. Claims 26 and 32 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 14.
Claim(s) 15 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange (2023/0259714) in view of Fishberg (2020/0394728) further in view of Fabris (2015/0206072).
Claim 15: The compute device of claim 14,
wherein the query from the user comprises an amenity criterial value representing a penalty for not having a corresponding amenity.
Lange in view of Fishberg discloses a query from a user for accommodations, but does not explicitly disclose that the query from the user comprises an amenity criterial value representing a penalty for not having a corresponding amenity. Fabris suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Fabris ¶0019 disclosing the preference of hotels with user’s preferred loyalty account; ¶0021 disclosing the system determining a user prefers to stay at hotel properties with four stars (less likely to book a two star); also taking into consideration TRAXO scores (¶0023); (¶0037 disclosing that hotels with a low travel rating (e.g., the user’s own TRAXO start rating of 1 or 2) may be removed from the pool of booked hotels). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lange in view of Fishberg to include that the query from the user comprises an amenity criterial value representing a penalty for not having a corresponding amenity as taught by Farbis. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lange in view of Fishberg in order to recommend travel services based on user preferences (see ¶004 of Fabris).
Claim 33 are directed to a device. Claim 33 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 15, which is directed towards a device. Claim 33 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628