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
This action is in reply to application 19/146,925 filed 7/10/2025. Claims 1-2 and 7-8 were amended and claim 4 was cancelled in the reply filed 9/22/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 9 regarding claims 1 and 7: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. It is still unclear from Applicant’s remarks and the amended claim language what the function of “splitting” is doing to the associated dates. The function of “splitting” a date is used “to obtain a set of target dates,” but it is unclear how one date may be split into a plurality of dates. For example, today is October 6th, 2026. It is unclear how October 6th, 2026 may be split into a plurality of dates because dates do not exist on a more granular level within October 6th, 2026.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 9 regarding claims 1 and 7: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea within the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the abstract idea has been properly categorized.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a distinctive technical feature by claiming the construction of date units from sets of target dates generated around each change date, combined with the requirement that the sequential order of the target dates within each date unit conforms to the flight segment order of the corresponding change dates. However, all of these limitations are part of the abstract idea and do not recite any technical features. See rejection below which analyzes both the recited abstract idea and the additional elements present in the claims. See also MPEP § 2106.05(f) regarding merely “applying” an abstract idea to a generic computer environment.
Applicant further argues that the abstract idea should not be considered “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited abstract idea is directed to the managing of the business relations between a service provider and a customer in the field of airline tickets.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is an improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to McRo Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite alleged improvements to an abstract process regarding the organization and analysis of data, and, as mentioned above, do not provide an improvement to computer functionality or another technology or technical field as alleged by Applicant. Merely claiming an abstract idea applied to a generic computer environment executed in a specific order did not make McRo or Enfish patent eligible subject matter. The instant claims are not analogous to either of these cases.
The above responses to Applicant’s arguments further apply to the dependent claims. The dependent claims merely further narrow the recited abstract idea and do not provide additional elements which integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. See rejection below for more detail.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 24 regarding claims 1-3 and 5-10: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Claims -1-3 and 5-10 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an obtaining unit, a splitting unit, a construction unit, a combination and generation unit, a price difference calculation unit, a selection unit, and a feedback unit in claim 7; and a splitting sub-unit in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recites the limitation “splitting each date ... to obtain a target date.” It is unclear from the claim language and the specification what function is being performed by the term “splitting each date” and how this splitting is used to obtain a target date. For examination purposes, the term “splitting each date” will be interpreted as generating all of the available flights for each date, and “a target date” will be interpreted as one of the available flight times for each date.
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.
Claim 10 is not rejected under 35 USC § 101 for being “signals per se” because the specific definition of a computer storage medium provided in spec. para. [0171] defines a computer-readable medium as not including transitory media.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 recite a method, an apparatus, an electronic device, and a computer storage medium, respectively, for obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user; splitting, for each of the change date, each date within a preset range to obtain a set of target dates corresponding to the respective change date, wherein the set of target dates comprises the change date and each date within the preset range surrounding the respective change date; constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates, wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates, and a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates; generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates, wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates; calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit; and feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user, wherein generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates comprises: if there is only one change date, determining, based on the flight information of the target date in each of the date units, each of the target flights on the target date in the date unit as a flight combination corresponding to the date unit; if there are a plurality of change dates, combining, based on the flight information of each of the target dates in each of the date units, each of the target flights on the target date in the date unit to obtain a flight combination corresponding to the date unit, wherein one of the flight combinations comprises one of the target flights in each of the target dates in the date unit; screening out, based on information of the current user, the flight combinations that meet the expectation of the current user from the flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; determining whether the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units is greater than a preset number; if it is determined that the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit is not greater than the preset number, determining the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit as the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit; if it is determined that the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit is greater than the preset number, calculating, based on flight information of each of the target flights, scores of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit; and selecting, based on the scores of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit, the preset number of the flight combinations from the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit, and determining the selected flight combinations as the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user; splitting, for of the change date, each date within a preset range to obtain a set of target dates corresponding to the respective change date, wherein the set of target dates comprises the change date and each date within the preset range surrounding the respective change date; constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates, wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates, and a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates; generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates, wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates; calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit; and feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user, wherein generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates comprises: if there is only one change date, determining, based on the flight information of the target date in each of the date units, each of the target flights on the target date in the date unit as a flight combination corresponding to the date unit; if there are a plurality of change dates, combining, based on the flight information of each of the target dates in each of the date units, each of the target flights on the target date in the date unit to obtain a flight combination corresponding to the date unit, wherein one of the flight combinations comprises one of the target flights in each of the target dates in the date unit; screening out, based on information of the current user, the flight combinations that meet the expectation of the current user from the flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; determining whether the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units is greater than a preset number; if it is determined that the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit is not greater than the preset number, determining the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit as the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit; if it is determined that the number of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit is greater than the preset number, calculating, based on flight information of each of the target flights, scores of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit; and selecting, based on the scores of the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit, the preset number of the flight combinations from the screened flight combinations corresponding to the date unit, and determining the selected flight combinations as the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 1: a plurality of processors; the additional elements of claim 7: a plurality of processors, an air ticket change information processing apparatus, an obtaining unit, a splitting unit, a construction unit, a combination and generation unit, a price difference calculation unit, a selection unit, and a feedback unit; the additional elements of claim 9: an electronic device, one or more processing apparatuses, and a memory; and the additional elements of claim 10: a computer storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 and claim 7 as a whole merely describes the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 1: a plurality of processors; the additional elements of claim 7: an air ticket change information processing apparatus, an obtaining unit, a splitting unit, a construction unit, a combination and generation unit, a price difference calculation unit, a selection unit, and a feedback unit; the additional elements of claim 9: an electronic device, one or more processing apparatuses, and a memory; and the additional elements of claim 10: a computer storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claims 8 recites the additional element a splitting sub-unit, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claims 8 recites the additional element a splitting sub-unit, they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-3 and 5-10 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Taylor (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0288973) in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0147951). Other relevant prior art includes: Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0268325), Chute (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0304264), Chen (CN 106779117 A), and Eijdenberg (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0156317). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
