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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “The invention addresses a recognized technical problem: how to process highly dynamic, multi-dimensional inventory (availability, pricing, and user preferences) efficiently and accurately in real time without repeated full-dataset re-computations or excess API calls. “The Examiner disagrees. Tracking highly dynamic, multi-dimensional inventory user inventory is not a problem rooted in computer technology. It existed in a pre-internet world. It is in actuality a business problem and not one rooted in computer technology, as suggested by Applicant.
Applicant further argues:
II. Step 2A, Prong 1 - Not "Directed To" an Abstract Idea A. The claims recite a specific improvement in computer functionality
The invention improves computer operation in at least three technical respects:
1. Improved data structures:
User information is encoded into a user-attribute vector; inventory items are encoded into item feature vectors with real-time components (availability, price, attributes).
These vectorized data structures enable faster computation and reduced memory usage compared to symbolic or rule-based systems.
This is analogous to Enfish LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Court found a self-referential table improved database operation.
2. Improved processing algorithm:
Weighted vector combination and threshold gating improve processing speed and relevance accuracy.
Real-time component updates (availability/pricing) reduce the need for re-computing full scores, lowering computational overhead.
These are concrete, algorithmic improvements in computer processing efficiency, not
economic concepts.
3. Improved computer-system control:”
The Examiner disagrees. As an initial matter, Applicant has added by amendment a large amount of abstract language i.e. intent indicators and contextual entities, etc... The portions of the claim that Applicant references are part of the abstract idea. The remaining language merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, they are not additional elements that when looked at as a whole or in combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The few additional elements that are recited are being used as tool to perform the abstract steps. Applicant further argues that the claims are like Enfish LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 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 human activities and an idea of itself. 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 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 central 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 improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed in the instant application.
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 how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement. Again, Applicant's supposed improvement is not a technology based solution.
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.
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
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