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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/2026 and 7/14/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the index" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “application management unit”, “price calculation unit”, and “service presentation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that claimed function of of each of the units presented. The disclosure of the application does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of the ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of booking a travel itinerary. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “an application management unit configured to receive a condition including a destination and a deadline specified by the user; a price calculation unit configured to calculate a price of the ticket based on available seat information up to the specified deadline, and present the price to the user by the application management unit; and a service presentation unit configured, when the user accepts the presented price, to select a service based on a predetermined criterion from candidate combinations of an outbound service satisfying the condition and a return service corresponding to the outbound service and present the service to the user by the application management unit.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receive”, “calculate”, and “select” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually create a travel itinerary for a user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-4, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-4 define how the travel itinerary is suggested or created to a user which further describes the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daughtrey et al. referred herein as Daug (U.S. Patent No. 7,840,426).
As to claim 1, Daug teaches a system comprising:
an application management unit configured to receive a condition including a destination and a deadline specified by the user; (fig. 2, col 3 lines 39-46 and col 4 lines 29-46)
a price calculation unit configured to calculate a price of the ticket based on available seat information up to the specified deadline, and present the price to the user by the application management unit; (col 2 lines 25-50 and col 4-5 lines 56-10)
a service presentation unit configured, when the user accepts the presented price, to select a service based on a predetermined criterion from candidate combinations of an outbound service satisfying the condition and a return service corresponding to the outbound service and present the service to the user by the application management unit. (col 5 lines 11-47)
As to claim 2, Daug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daug further teaches:
wherein the price calculation unit calculates the price based on, in addition to the available seat information, information including a number of days up to the deadline date, user's specification regarding the number of days up to the deadline date, a number of days of stay at the destination, a number of people traveling to the destination together with the user, prediction regarding an amount of money consumed by the user at the destination, a degree of travel demand for the destination, and a number of visits to the destination by the user in the past. (col 4-5 lines 56-10, col 5 lines 47-57 and fig. 2)
As to claim 3, Daug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daug further teaches:
wherein the service presentation unit selects the service based on available seat information related to each candidate combination and a value of an index indicating utility for the user. (col 4-5 lines 56-10 and fig. 2)
As to claim 4, Daug teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daug further teaches:
wherein the index indicating the utility for the user is calculated based on information including departure time zones of the outbound service and the return service of each candidate combination, whether the outbound service and the return service of each candidate combination respectively satisfy user's desired day of week for departure, and whether departure dates of the outbound service and the return service of each candidate combination satisfy the user's desired number of days of stay at the destination. (col 4-5 lines 56-10 and fig. 2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights