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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 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, namely, marketing or sales activities and business relations.
Applicant further argues, “1. Improved data representations:
User information extracted from natural-language input is encoded into a user-attribute
vector. Travel inventory items are encoded into high-dimensional item feature vectors
representing semantic and functional characteristics of the corresponding inventory items.
The item feature vectors include components representing availability, pricing, and item attributes and are continuously updated based on changes in the corresponding inventory data.
The system therefore maintains machine-readable numerical representations reflecting the current.” While Applicant believes that these are examples of improved data representations, the Examiner finds that they further limit the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the claims recite an improved algorithm. The Examiner disagrees. The calculation of a score is directed to the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claimed system results in improved computer control. The Examiner disagrees. Updating an itinerary record in a computer is not an improvement to technology. The advantage that may be seen for such an update would be a business improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to those in Enfish, LLC, Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). The Examiner disagrees. The claims in Enfish were determined to be focused on the specific improvement in computer capabilities. In the instant Application there is no improvement to a computer. Even if one looked at the idea of an improvement to the software arts, there is still no comparison, as Applicant’s invention does not provide an improvement to software technology so much as it adds a general-purpose computer to certain methods of organizing human activity. Moreover, the focus of Applicant’s claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is similar to that of the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, No. 2015-1080 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to the claims of the instant invention, the claims of of McRO were not deemed to be abstract. The claims instead were directed to "a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type." McRO, 2016 WL 4896481, at *8. The court explained that "the claimed improvement was allowing computers to produce 'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters' that previously could only be produced by human animators." Id. at *8 (quoting U.S. Patent No. 6,307,576 col. 2 ll. 49-50). The claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers. Id. at *8-9. Indeed, the inventors in McRO conceded that prior animating processes were "driven by subjective determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules," such as the mathematical rules articulated in McRO's claimed method. Id. at *8. Is it now Applicant's position that the claimed invention was previously done by humans and Applicant has now applied mathematical rules that are an improvement that is merely executed on a computer? Even if Applicant were to be asserting this, the claims of McRo were not deemed to be abstract so Applicant's supposed "rules" would still be merely a part of the abstract idea.
Further, the court in McRO explained that "it was the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer that 'improved the existing technological process' by allowing the automation of further tasks." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). Applicant's claims are more like those of FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although FairWarning's claims require the use of a computer, it is this incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly "improves the existing technological process" by allowing the automation of further tasks. This is the same deficiency of the claims of the instant invention.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an integration into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees. Concrete technical implementation, processing dynamically changing computer data, producing a concrete computer-system result and controlling interactions between computer systems is not a part of the analysis for whether there is an integration. What should be a part of the analysis is whether the claims:
improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC 15-1763, the Examiner disagrees. Unlike Bascom, the instant Application does not describe a method for filtering Internet content at a remote ISP server with individually customizable filters for each user. BASCOM’s patent proposed a remote, server-based filtering system requiring user login, which allowed dynamic and personalized content control. Applicant's claims do not recite a similar fact pattern and Applicant’s supposed improvement is not a technology-based solution.
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 2-4, 6-9, 12-13, 15-18 and 20-24 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:
receive, via a conversational, a first user input indicating a travel request;
apply to the first user input to extract intent indicators, contextual entities, and preference keywords, and encode the extracted information into a user-attribute vector stored in a profile;
for each travel inventory item obtainable via a generate an item feature vector whose components include at least availability, pricing, and item attributes, and update the item feature vector in real time in response to a change in availability or pricing of the corresponding inventory item;
compute a relevance score for each inventory item by applying weighting factors derived from the user-attribute vector to components of the item feature vector and combining the weighted components to produce a single relevance score;
select at least one inventory item for recommendation only when the relevance score satisfies a predefined threshold;
display the travel recommendation as a ranked list including the selected inventory item; and
automatically initiate a travel booking for the selected inventory item by constructing and transmitting a booking request populated from the user-attribute vector and the selected item feature vector, receiving a confirmation identifier from the booking, and updating an itinerary record with the confirmation identifier.
execute a vector-similarity comparison between the user-attribute vector and the item feature vector using a similarity metric to determine best-matched travel inventory items, wherein the item feature vectors comprise high-dimensional vectors encoding semantic and functional characteristics of the corresponding travel inventory items and are continuously updated based on changes in availability, pricing, or item attributes of the corresponding travel inventory items.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (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 certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “processor, memory, user interface, natural-language processing, database, booking application programming interface (API), booking API request”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being managing personal behavior and commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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, processor, memory, user interface, natural-language processing, database, booking application programming interface (API), booking API request. 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);
- (processor, memory, user interface, natural-language processing, database, booking application programming interface (API), booking API request)
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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. 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
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 2 describe a profile database; Claim 3 describes a user interface; Claim 4 describes a processor; Claim 7 and 16 describes an e-mail, short message service (SMS) message, an in-application notification, or push notification; Claim 9 and 18 describes a skin; Claim 12 describes a database, but 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights