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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. This is evidenced in the claims reciting mixture queries for travel. Applicant further argues “Additionally, by booking a selected split stay on behalf of the user in this manner, the usability of the search system (e.g., lodging search service system) as a tool for performing mixture queries and booking split stays is improved from a human-computer interaction perspective.” The Examiner disagrees. An improvement from a human interaction perspective is not an improvement to a technology. Providing an interface for “unsophisticated users” as Applicant suggest is also not an improvement to a computer technology. Applicant has not demonstrated how the recited claims improve the functioning of a computer.
Applicant has argues the same comments regarding DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. The Examiner maintains the same rebuttal Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to that of DDR in that they are rooted in technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the computer network (or other technological) realm. The Examiner disagrees. The DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com Federal Circuit decision states, "But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."-(see pg. 20).
Applicant's claims seek to address a problem that existed and continues to exist outside of the realm of the technology associated with the additionally recited elements. The proposed solution is one that could have been implemented directly by a human performing analogous functions by hand and/or with the assistance of a general- purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level of generality or with the assistance of additional elements performing well-known, conventional functions. In Applicant's claims, the processor could be substituted with a human user and the underlying invention would result in a similar solution to the problem at hand. The rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in the DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com decision. In the DDR Holdings decision, the manner in which the network itself operated was changed to improve network operations. There is no actual technological improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed in the instant application.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 2-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receiving, from a, a search query comprising one or more criteria associated with a split stay;
selectively executing, a mixture query based at least in part on the one or more criteria, the mixture query associated with mixture query instructions logically grouped according to functionality the mixture query instructions provide when executed by the search system;
generating, based at least in part on the mixture query and the mixture query instructions, a first subquery associated with a first leg of the split stay and a second subquery associated with a second leg of the split stay;
receiving a first set of search results for the first subquery and a second set of search results for the second subquery;
determining a split stay option comprising a first stay option from the first set of search results and a second stay option from the second set of search results; and providing the split stay option to the client computing device for presentation.
determining, based at least in part the selection and a predetermined rebooking criteria hardcoded in instructions executed by the search system, that the split stay satisfies the predetermined rebooking criteria and maintaining the booking based at least in part on the predetermined rebooking criteria.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of sales activities or behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “client computing device, non-transitory computer-readable media/medium, processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “client computing device, non-transitory computer-readable media/medium, search system, multiple webpages, processors”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
“client computing device, search system multiple webpages non-transitory computer-readable media/medium, processors)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to 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 exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, 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 component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 12, 14 and 21 describe, individual databases and a single user interface, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628