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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 11 were amended, claims 3 and 13 were canceled, and new claims 21-22 were added in the reply filed January 8, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the Advisory Action mailed January 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
record first location data regarding a physical location of a first user and a first calendar for a first user;
record second location data regarding a physical location of a second user and a second calendar for a second user;
determining a plurality of first times that the first user is available using first appointments entered in the first calendar and a plurality of second times that the second user is available using second appointments entered in the second calendar;
determining a first location of the first user and a second location of the second user;
assigning one or more first weights for one or more of an event location, an event time and an event date, the one or more first weights being a maximum value;
assigning one or more second weights to one or more of the first times, the second times, the first location and the second location, the one or more second weights being less than the maximum value;
inputting the one or more of the event location, the event time and the event date, the one or more first weights, the one or more of the first times, the second times, the first location and the second location, and the one or more second weights;
inputting travel information for a plurality of potential travel options retrieved from a travel search and booking system;
outputting a plurality of output travel options based on at least the first weights and the second weights;
reserving a first travel option of the plurality of travel options for the first user departing from a first airport within a predefined first range of the first location at a first time when the first user is available according to the first calendar and a second travel option of the plurality of output travel options for the second user departing from a second airport within a predefined second range of the second location at a second time when the second user is available according to the second calendar, the first travel option and the second travel option arriving in a common location on a same day;
determine whether the first user arrived at the first airport on the same day prior to the first time;
determine whether the second user arrived at the second airport on the same day prior to the second time;
when the first user did not arrive at the first airport on the same day prior to first time, canceling the first travel option and reserve a new first travel option for the first user departing from the first airport at a different first time when the first user is available according to the first calendar and notifying the second user that the first user is traveling according to the new first travel option; and
when the second user did not arrive at the second airport on the same day prior to second time, canceling the second travel option and reserving a new second travel option for the second user departing from the second airport at a different second time when the second user is available according to the second calendar and notifying the first user that the second user is traveling according to the new second travel option.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting and analyzing information for managing the travel behaviors of a group of people and providing information for structuring their related transactional/commercial relationships with transportation service providers (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities)).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data or time data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as tailoring travel information presented to a user based on, e.g., location or calendar data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of group travel, then displaying the results; Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023)--distributing information upon matching GPS location, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as distributing travel information upon matching GPS location).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (central server with memory and processor, applications, GPS devices that can be disabled, user terminals, "digital" calendars, constraint solver—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, applications, "constraint solver," etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). In addition to being part of a generic user terminal, the GPS devices that can be disabled can also be viewed as merely performing extra-solution data gathering activities (i.e., making location determinations of people solely in furtherance of organizing their travel activities and bookings, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (central server with memory and processor, applications, GPS devices that can be disabled, user terminals, "digital" calendars, constraint solver—see published Specification ¶¶ 0034, 38-41, 47-49, 90 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements; see also ¶ 0056 noting that the constraint solver can be implemented through a generic server running OptaPlanner, which is publicly available open source software).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general link to a technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (generic server, generic user terminals with GPS, etc). Claims 3 and 13 introduce a database and claims 6 and 16 introduce graphical user interfaces. However, these are both generically recited and only serve to further set forth the general link to a particular technological environment.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (database and GUIs), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see published Specification ¶¶ 0041-42, 54). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628