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 Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed4/8/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 were amended. Claim 3, 11 and 14 were cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under Claim Objection: Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to claims 3 and 11 have been fully considered and Claim Objection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/8/2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims 1 and 9 do not merely recite a method of organizing human activity. Rather, the claims recite a specific, technologically grounded data processing method that includes… combination of the above three elements - particularly the specific seven-variable data conversion step - constitutes a technical process that goes well beyond any abstract idea of "organizing human activity" or "price prediction" in the abstract… amended claims recite a specific improvement to computer-related technology within the meaning of MPEP 2106.05(a). Specifically, the claims address a technical problem in the field of price prediction for products and services with high price volatility, include products and services such as rental cars, airline tickets, and accommodation reservations. The technical problem is how to accurately capture temporal price fluctuation patterns using structured data variables derived from raw query data. The claimed solution - converting query date and usage start date into ISO calendar-based week number, day of week, day before/during/after holiday, and advance purchase days, and using these as input variables for a trained price prediction model - represents a specific, concrete, and non-conventional approach to this technical problem”, (see remarks , pg. 10-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for product price prediction, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as well as Mathematical concepts in form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formals or equations and mathematical calculations and Mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind which include observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, as the product price prediction in the claims can be formed through the method of mathematical calculations to conclude with an estimate/prediction of price prediction service for a product at a particular purchase date. The computing elements such as “processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 4/8/2026 are persuasive, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for product price prediction.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 9 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving price query data for a product from a customer through operatively connected, the price query data including a query date and a usage start date; generating multiple product condition data from the price query data based on predetermined multiple features for the product; converting the query date and the usage start date into data arranged according to product type, the converted data being included in the multiple product condition data and including information on usage year, usage week number of year, usage day of week, days before holiday, holiday duration in days, days after holiday, and advance purchase days; predicting sales prices by purchase date by inputting the multiple product condition data into a price prediction trained to predict sales prices for the product by purchase date using product condition data as input; and providing the customer with a price prediction that graphically visualizes price changes for the product by purchase date” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a fitted model. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9). The processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even 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 ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 15-16 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the server in claims 10, 12-13 and 15-16; model in claims 8 and 16; service interface screen in claim 4-6 and 12-13, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights