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 Amendment
Amendments received 11-07-2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim 1 has been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 66-78 are currently pending.
The official correspondence is an after non-final on an RCE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 66, 68-71, 74, and 77-78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Willard discloses, generating a multi-modal itinerary (Willard: [FIG. 13(core trans system)]; [FIG. 11(all of it, as a whole)]; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation) for a journey between an origin and a destination (Willard: [0097] pickup and drop off location pairs; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation (examiner: including side quests for extracurricular destinations)) and associated departure and arrival times, respectively (Willard: [0206] Pickup time with time zone offset from GMT, [0207] Requested drop off time; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation), the method comprising: a) receiving, by a computer system (Willard: [0232] The Reservation Application processes a Reservation Request Transaction as a result of receiving an inbound Reservation Request Message), a transport objective including coordinates of the origin (Willard: [0067] the base Inventory Management Application will submit the pickup and drop off locations to the GIS and receive back the lat/long coordinates for both locations ... [0068] If the lat/long coordinates are present, the base Inventory Management Application will submit these coordinates for the pickup and drop off locations; [0218] Coordinates of the pickup location, the coordinates of the drop off location), coordinates of the destination (Willard: [0067-0068]; [0218]) and journey time constraint (Willard: [ABS] the "least cost" route on the date and time of service and from the pickup location to the drop off location; [0020] the network analysis function of a GIS can determine the "least cost" (where cost is actually drive time) route on the date and time of service and from the pickup location to the drop off location. The network analysis function typically considers multiple routes to accomplish transportation from the pickup to the drop off location and then selects the least cost route; [0206] Pickup time with time zone offset from GMT, [0207] Requested drop off time, [0208] Estimated drive time and distance, [0209] Pickup location, [0210] Drop off location (except for hourly service)), wherein the multi-modal itinerary (Willard: [FIG. 13(core trans system)]; [FIG. 11(all of it, as a whole)]; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation) includes one or more connecting legs (Willard: [0004] Point-to-Point service; [FIG. 11(all of it, as a whole)]; [0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation; [0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation) and at least (i) an initial leg (Willard: [0004]; [FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)]; [0140]; [0578]) between the origin and a departure terminal (Willard: [0004]; [FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)]; [0140]; [0578]) of a first connecting leg (Willard: [0004]; [FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)]; [0140]; [0578]), or (ii) a terminating leg between an arrival terminal of a lasting connecting leg and the destination (Willard: [0004]; [FIG. 11(train between plane and hotel)]; [0140]; [0578]), wherein at least one of the origin or destination comprises a location that is not a transport terminal (Willard: [0004]; [FIG. 11(see hotel or home)]; [0140]; [0578]), wherein an on-demand transport being used (Willard: [FIG. 2(ride share reservation request)]; [FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)]; [0157], [0215]) for the initial leg between the origin and departure terminal of the first connecting leg or the terminating leg between the arrival terminal of the last connecting leg and the destination, or a combination thereof (Willard: [FIG. 2(ride share reservation request)]; [FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)]; [0157], [0215]), wherein the multi-modal itinerary is subject to a journey time constraint (Willard: [ABS] the "least cost" route on the date and time of service and from the pickup location to the drop off location; [0020] the network analysis function of a GIS can determine the "least cost" (where cost is actually drive time) route on the date and time of service and from the pickup location to the drop off location. The network analysis function typically considers multiple routes to accomplish transportation from the pickup to the drop off location and then selects the least cost route; [0206] Pickup time with time zone offset from GMT, [0207] Requested drop off time, [0208] Estimated drive time and distance, [0209] Pickup location, [0210] Drop off location (except for hourly service)) on (iii) departure time from the origin, (iv) arrival time at the destination, or (v) duration of a door-to-door transport journey, or a combination thereof (Willard: [ABS]; [0020]; [0206-0210]), each departure terminal of the departure-arrival terminal pairs being proximal to the origin (Willard: [FIG. 11] in at least one scenario, the origin can be the house (home), car to plane, plane to a railway vehicle, railway vehicle to lodging, optionally a shuttle to an activity and returning on a shuttle to lodging, three transports to a meeting or other lodging, three more transports to house. A plurality of arrival and departure pairs can be observed. "each departure terminal of the departure-arrival terminal pairs being proximal to the origin" can be observed, for example, every mode of transport leaving a lodging or building is proximal to departing point), each arrival terminal of the departure-arrival terminal pairs being proximal to the destination (Willard: [FIG. 11]), each departure-arrival terminal pair being associated with a connecting transport mode having a fixed schedule (FS) model (Willard: [0003] Contrary to airline seats (examiner: suggests fixed), hotel rooms, and rental cars, however, the passenger can rent the chauffeur and vehicle for variable periods of time ... examiner: see at least [FIG. 11] for a fixed schedule (railway transport, flight), or for variable schedule (shuttle, also flight (take-off time are sometimes fixed and sometimes vary)), or for on-demand (taxi/car service) for a pair, or for a combination of; [FIG. 2 (continued)(update calendar and hold availability)]), a variable schedule (VS) model (Willard: [0003] Contrary to airline seats, hotel rooms, and rental cars, however, the passenger can rent the chauffeur and vehicle for variable periods of time; [0028] an individual vehicle or fleet of vehicles using a calendar that can track variable rental periods; [0105]; [0102]chauffeured transportation vertical is the vehicle and the driver who operates the vehicle during a variable period of time; [0633] Shortest duration of service (e.g., an hour), [0634] Incremental service durations (e.g., an hour), [0635] Time of day, day of week, weekday versus weekend, [0636] Seasonal factors, holidays, events, special occasions ... [0639] Time needed to stage inventory ... [0641] Promotion period) or an on-demand (OD) model for an associated one or more connecting legs connecting a departure terminal and an arrival terminal of the departure-arrival terminal pair, or a combination thereof (Willard: [0087] On Demand Service Flag; [0157] support distribution for both pre-planned and on demand service; [0215] include on demand service (no lead time required to book) and pre-planned service (variable lead time required to book); [0640] on demand access to inventory).
Willard does not explicitly disclose, specific departure and arrival times are not specified; and the transport objective to provide a basis to assess and display on a user interface of a user computing device one or more multi-modal itinerary options from the origin to the destination, including candidate transport services and forecast times for each leg; (b) executing instructions by one or more processors to identify one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs, (c) executing instructions by the one or more processors to forecast at least one transit time between coordinates of the origin and at least one departure terminal, or a transit time between at least one arrival terminal and coordinates of the destination based, at least in part, on the journey time constraint, and to determine at least one generalized time constraint applicable at the at least one arrival terminal or the at least one departure terminal based, at least in part, on the forecasted at least one transit time; (d) executing instructions by the one or more processors to determine, based at least in part on the at least one generalized time constraint, a plurality of multi-modal itineraries, via the one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs, that satisfy the transport objective, each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries including candidate transport services for each connecting leg, as well as arrival and departure times for each leg; and (e) initiating display of a list of at least a subset of the plurality of the multi-modal itineraries on the user interface of the user computing device to receive selection of one of the itineraries in the subset, display of the list of the at least the subset of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries to be based on one or more utility scores computed for one or more of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Benque discloses, specific departure and arrival times are not specified (Benque: [0036] a time sliding window option; [0090] minimum and maximum allowable stopover durations, the stopover time window, the minimum and maximum allowable segment durations, and the segment time window); and the transport objective to provide a basis to assess and display on a user interface of a user computing device (Benque: [0028-0029] the traveler system 20 may comprise a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer, a smart phone, or any other computing device that enables the traveler to search for and book travel services … an input/output (I/O) interface 38, and a Human Machine Interface (HMI)) one or more multi-modal itinerary options from the origin to the destination (Benque: [ABS] Candidate travel proposals that do not satisfy the trip constraints may be discarded, and the remaining candidate travel proposals displayed to the traveler; [0002] One or more of the travel proposals may then be presented to a traveler or travel agent based on criteria such as a travel time or price; [0022-0023] Data received from the traveler may also include data defining criteria for ranking travel proposals meeting the trip constraints ... the travel planning module may determine a plurality of trip proposals that satisfy the trip constraints, and cause these proposals to be displayed to the traveler; [0046]; [0055]; [0063]; [0069]; [FIG. 4 (providers (carrier code), distance, est. time)] and [FIG. 7 (126-134)]), including candidate transport services (Benque: see at least [0058], [FIG. 4 (providers (carrier code), distance, est. time)] and [FIG. 7 (126-134)]) and forecast times for each leg (Benque: see at least [0058], [FIG. 4 (providers (carrier code), distance, est. time)] and [FIG. 7 (126-134)]); (b) executing instructions by one or more processors to identify one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs (Benque: [0022] This data may define a starting location or “origin”, an ending location or “destination”, and one or more trip constraints. The trip constraints may include a requirement that the trip include a stopover between segments during which the traveler may disembark from a conveyance, such as a plane, a train, or a bus), (c) executing instructions by the one or more processors to forecast at least one transit time between coordinates of the origin and at least one departure terminal (Benque: [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039] This data may include the starting and ending locations, or the market served by the segment, scheduled departure and arrival times, cost, availability, the type of segment (air, rail, or bus service), the travel time; [0047]; [0049]), or a transit time between at least one arrival terminal and coordinates of the destination (Benque: [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]) based, at least in part, on the journey time constraint (Benque: [ABS] Methods, systems, and computer program products for generating travel proposals that satisfy traveler defined stopover and segment time and activity constraints; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039] This data may include the starting and ending locations, or the market served by the segment, scheduled departure and arrival times, cost, availability, the type of segment (air, rail, or bus service), the travel time; [0047-0049]), and to determine at least one generalized time constraint (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]) applicable at the at least one arrival terminal or the at least one departure terminal (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]) based, at least in part, on the forecasted at least one transit time (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]); (d) executing instructions by the one or more processors to determine, based at least in part on the at least one generalized time constraint, a plurality of multi-modal itineraries (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]), via the one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]), that satisfy the transport objective (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]), each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries including candidate transport services for each connecting leg (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]), as well as arrival and departure times for each leg (Benque: [ABS]; [FIG. 5], [FIG. 7], [FIG. 8], [ABS]; [0039]; [0047-0049]); and (e) initiating display of a list of at least a subset of the plurality of the multi-modal itineraries on the user interface of the user computing device to receive selection of one of the itineraries in the subset (Benque: [0022] ...Data received from the traveler may also include data defining criteria for ranking travel proposals meeting the trip constraints. Based on the received information, the travel planning module may determine a plurality of trip proposals that satisfy the trip constraints, and cause these proposals to be displayed to the traveler...[0023] ...The travel proposals presented to the traveler may be filtered so that only travel proposals that include segments having a duration which corresponds to the allowable segment duration, or that provide the minimum allowable stopover duration, are displayed to the traveler. The traveler may thereby search for travel proposals that satisfy segment and stopover time constraints without a need to specify a particular time or place for the stopover; [0046] The travel planning module 52 may use the criteria used to rank the travel proposals so that travel proposals which more closely match the traveler preferences are displayed more prominently to the traveler. For example, the travel planning module 52 may be configured so that out of a total number of travel proposals which satisfy the travel request, just a portion that satisfy the traveler preferences are displayed to the traveler; [0063] All or a portion of the travel proposals 76 may be displayed on the user interface, and may be displayed according to an order determined based on the ranking criteria), display of the list of the at least the subset of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries (Benque: [0022-0023]; [0046]; [0063]) to be based on one or more utility scores computed for one or more of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries (Benque: [0022-0023]; [0046]; [0063]), for the benefit of discarding and ranking candidate travel proposals based upon traveler requirements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Willard to include specific departure and arrival times are not specified; and the transport objective to provide a basis to assess and display on a user interface of a user computing device one or more multi-modal itinerary options from the origin to the destination, including candidate transport services and forecast times for each leg; (b) executing instructions by one or more processors to identify one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs, (c) executing instructions by the one or more processors to forecast at least one transit time between coordinates of the origin and at least one departure terminal, or a transit time between at least one arrival terminal and coordinates of the destination based, at least in part, on the journey time constraint, and to determine at least one generalized time constraint applicable at the at least one arrival terminal or the at least one departure terminal based, at least in part, on the forecasted at least one transit time; (d) executing instructions by the one or more processors to determine, based at least in part on the at least one generalized time constraint, a plurality of multi-modal itineraries, via the one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs, that satisfy the transport objective, each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries including candidate transport services for each connecting leg, as well as arrival and departure times for each leg; and (e) initiating display of a list of at least a subset of the plurality of the multi-modal itineraries on the user interface of the user computing device to receive selection of one of the itineraries in the subset, display of the list of the at least the subset of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries to be based on one or more utility scores computed for one or more of the plurality of multi-modal itineraries taught by Benque. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to discard and rank candidate travel proposals based upon traveler requirements.
REGARDING CLAIM 66, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, the forecasted at least one transit time forecasts a time of transit between the coordinates of the origin and the departure terminal determined by tracking large numbers of trips that terminate at the departure terminal or pass through the departure terminal (Willard: [ABS]; [0068]; [0020]; [FIG. 11] see services between home and airport, and, hotel and airport).
In this case, the examiner interprets the limitation as forecasting based upon historical data.
REGARDING CLAIM 68, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries is determined by linking, sequentially, an initial leg from the origin to a departure terminal, one or more connecting legs from a departure terminal to an arrival terminal, and a terminating from an arrival terminal to the destination, each pair of legs of the itinerary connected by a transfer (Willard: see at least [FIG. 11 and 12]).
Willard does not explicitly recite the terminology "each itinerary". However, Willard discloses "multi-modal itinerary is determined by linking, sequentially, an initial leg from the origin to a departure terminal, one or more connecting legs from a departure terminal to an arrival terminal, and a terminating from an arrival terminal to the destination, each pair of legs of the itinerary connected by a transfer" at least once in figures 11 and 12, and, the duplication of essential steps or parts is well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill in the art.
REGARDING CLAIM 69, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, searching for candidate transport services that meet the generalized time constraint applicable at the departure-arrival terminal pair (Willard: [0568-0570]) requesting candidate transport services on variable, shared or on-demand schedules that meet the generalized time constraint applicable at the departure-arrival terminal pair (Willard: [0583]; [FIG. 11 and 12); and receiving responses over time (Willard: [0325]).
REGARDING CLAIM 70, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, determining at least one door-to-door metric for the plurality of multi-modal itineraries based on forecasting for each itinerary, the initial leg from the origin, and the terminating leg to the destination (Benque: [0022]; [FIG.6] the journey is subject to at least one time constraint on departure, arrival, or door-to-door transport can be observed; [FIG. 3] elements 54 and 55; [FIG. 7] elements 122-134).
REGARDING CLAIM 71, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, the at least one door-to- door metric includes a transport utility that is determined from a total cost incurred on that itinerary from the origin to the destination (Benque: [0003]; [0046]).
In this case, utility is interpreted as usefulness, and the limitation is interpreted as determined useful based on cost of itinerary.
REGARDING CLAIM 74, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, monitoring the plurality of multi-modal itineraries and updating them as individual itineraries or aspects thereof change (Benque: [0042]).
REGARDING CLAIM 77, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, the transport objective is derived from data stored on preferences of a user (Willard: [0217]).
REGARDING CLAIM 78, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, the transport objective includes at least one preference for departure, arrival or the door-to-door journey to occur within a preferred time window, such that the preferred time window satisfies the journey time constraint (Benque: [0003]; [0022]; [0046]).
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaam (US 20140149157 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 67, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque do not explicitly disclose, transport objective specifies at least one of an arrival terminal within a predetermined distance, a departure terminal within a predetermined distance, a departure time within a predetermined time period or an arrival time within a predetermined time period, or a combination thereof; and each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries identifies an exact arrival terminal, departure terminal, departure time, and arrival time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shaam discloses, the transport objective specifies at least one of an arrival terminal within a predetermined distance, a departure terminal within a predetermined distance (Shaam: [0033-0034]), a departure time within a predetermined time period or an arrival time within a predetermined time period (Shaam: [0064]; [0086-0088] see inbound and outbound time ranges, dragging a slider for arrival and departing windows; [FIG. 2(261)] predetermined time periods can be observed), or a combination thereof; and each itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries identifies an exact arrival terminal, departure terminal, departure time, and arrival time (Shaam: [FIG. 10 & 11] plurality of multi-modal...; [FIG. 1-3, 6, 14, 17-18] time, terminal, etc.), for the benefit of providing a user with detailed itineraries with selection mode includes air and the connections comprise at least one of car, public transportation, train, or bus to/from airports associated with the air options.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Willard to include time and distance objectives taught by Shaam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a user with detailed itineraries with selection mode includes air and the connections comprise at least one of car, public transportation, train, or bus to/from airports associated with the air options.
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) as applied to claim 71 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20160321771 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 72, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 71, and further, Willard in view of Benque do not explicitly disclose, the transport utility is determined from fees required to modify a transport service associated with the itinerary once reserved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses, “[0064] In some cases, this may be not simply to pick up all the ride-sharers as, for instance, some riders may elect to pay a higher fee to be more desirable for pickup”, for the benefit of providing a user with trip planning based on cost or convenience.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Willard to include fees for trip alterations taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a user with trip planning based on cost or convenience.
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muharemovic (US 20160155139 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 73, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque do not explicitly disclose, determining a likelihood that a fare of the one or more connecting legs, the initial leg, or the terminating leg, or a combination thereof, will decline based on historical fares.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Muharemovic discloses, “[ABS]; [0034]”, for the benefit of automatically accessing and retrieve the condition associated with the discount from the database.
Muharemovic does not explicitly recite the terminology, “determining a likelihood that a fare of at least one of the long-distance leg, the first local leg, or the second local leg will decline based, in part, on historical fares.” However, Muharemovic does teach determining eligibility for a fare discount for a flight segment if a condition is met, based on a maintained database (historical record), which reads on the claim.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel planning system disclosed by a modified Willard to include determining fare reduction based on historical data taught by Muharemovic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automatically access and retrieve the condition associated with the discount from the database.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demarchi (US 20160203422 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 75, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque also discloses, reserving an itinerary from the plurality of multi-modal itineraries responsive to selection from the user interface of the user computing device (Benque: [0022]; [0037]).
Willard in view of Benque do not explicitly disclose, continuously updating at least a subset of itineraries from the plurality of multi- modal itineraries after reserving the itinerary; and initiating display of an updated itinerary from the at least a subset of itineraries for selection after reserving the itinerary responsive to a transport utility of the updated itinerary exceeding a transport utility of the itinerary that was reserved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Demarchi discloses, “[0241-0256]”, for the benefit of updating vendor fares and refreshing traveler itineraries to provide real-time price, vendor, and time changes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Willard to include update/refresh all the changeable data properties like fares or vendors taught by Demarchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to update vendor fares and refreshing traveler itineraries to provide real-time price, vendor, and time changes.
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jayaram (US 20130268302 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 76, as best understood, Willard in view of Benque remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Willard in view of Benque do not explicitly disclose, the transport objective is derived from a link to an event in an electronic calendar.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jayaram discloses, “[0039]”, for the benefit of displaying to the one or more participants of the social trip planning session and providing a mechanism for receiving feedback regarding the trip element from the one or more participants to facilitating social travel planning.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel planning system disclosed by a modified Willard to include access to a calendar taught by Jayaram. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to display to the one or more participants of the social trip planning session and providing a mechanism for receiving feedback regarding the trip element from the one or more participants to facilitating social travel planning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, beginning on page 7, filed 11-07-2025, with respect to the 112(a) and (b) rejections of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) and (b) rejections of record has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11-07-2025, beginning on page 16, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record, specifically Willard (US 20150242944 A1), “is non-analogous art because it is a supplier side tool, not a user-facing itinerary generator”. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
[0179] The required pre-condition for this transaction is submission of a valid inbound Availability Request Message by the Reservation Application containing the required inputs. The required inputs in a valid inbound Availability Request message include the following: [0180] Service type (i.e., airport transfer, point-to-point transfer, hourly service, shared ride service, group transfer, group charter, etc.), [0181] Number of passengers
To the examiner’s best understanding, the multi-modal transportation method of Willard (US 20150242944 A1) is based upon user input
[0582] Both technologies will have dramatic impacts on human to computer interactions and future graphical user interfaces, and especially for travelers who need to create or modify their itineraries on mobile devices with smaller form factors
And is equipped with a user interface (mobile application) to modify an itinerary
[0501] The following steps must be completed as part of the Push Transaction Request Algorithm: Step 1--Successful TDIAM Add, Change, or Cancel Transaction [0502] This transaction is event driven and triggered by the successful processing of a predecessor Reservation Add, Change, or Cancel transaction in the central TDIAM System. Step 2--Generate Push Transaction Request Message [0503] Following successful completion of Step 1, the Reservation Application generates the request message with the appropriate transaction and message type codes to indicate whether the message pertains to an Add, Change, or Cancel transaction request. Step 3--Process Push Transaction Request Message [0504] The Reservation Application in the local supplier system processes the Push Transaction Request Message and either generates a confirmation of successful processing or issues one or more error messages
Wherein a user can add, modify, or cancel a reservation for multi-modal transport
[0680] To remedy this situation and introduce a Minimum Value Product that can be built quickly, offer an early opportunity to generate revenue for investors, and also provide key building blocks for the longer term TDIAM Reservations and Inventory Management Applications, a TDIAM GPS Tracking Application will be built that initially focuses on tracking of affiliate inventory assigned to deliver a service provider trip. The first building block is the Service Provider Directory, which can be marketed to convention bureaus and other target customers who need information on service providers in their markets but have no interest in taking reservations or managing inventory. Each service provider will define their affiliate network and farm out partners within this directory.
[0681] The second building block is the GPS Tracking Application, which will include an internet based GPS Tracking Console as well as a mobile application that a farm out or affiliate driver will use to activate GPS tracking of his vehicle when performing a service provider's delegated trip. The GPS Tracking Console will make use of geo-fences consisting of concentric circles drawn around the pickup point designating increments of "x" minutes of drive time to the pickup location. When the vehicle crosses the boundary line of each concentric circle, the GPS Tracking application will automatically calculate the number of minutes left to the pickup time and compare that calculation to the estimated number of minutes of drive time calculated by the GIS that is still needed to reach the pickup location. If the number of minutes left prior to the pickup time is "x" minutes less than the minutes of remaining drive time, the GPS Tracking application will issue an alert to the service provider and to the partner's dispatch office notifying both parties of an exception situation
Wherein, on the backend, providers can better manage their fleet, according to user needs, new reservation, alterations to reservations, and canceled reservation
Thus, as cited above, the examiner respectfully submits, the multi-modal itinerary is generated from user inputs, and allows transportation providers to provide availability and manage their fleets efficiently based upon user input on the user interface/App. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
The applicant has further contended, beginning on page 16, to the examiner’s best understanding, Benque (US 20150294238 A1) fails to disclose, “the multi- modal itinerary includes one or more connecting legs and at least (i) an initial leg between the origin and a departure terminal of a first connecting leg, or (ii) a terminating leg between an arrival terminal of a lasting connecting leg and the destination, wherein at least one of the origin or destination comprises a location that is not a transport terminal”. However, as cited above and in the prior office action, Willard (US 20150242944 A1) is relied upon for disclosing:
the multi-modal itinerary
[FIG. 13(core trans system)];
[FIG. 11(see all modes for multiple destinations)];
[0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation;
[0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation
includes one or more connecting legs
[0004] Point-to-Point service; [FIG. 11(see plurality of legs)];
[0140] FIG. 11 illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation;
[0578] The consumer can then make the decision to adjust his time and location coordinates or to eliminate a mode of transportation unsuitable to their itinerary. FIG. 11, illustrates a typical itinerary involving multi-modal surface transportation
and at least (i) an initial leg
[0004];
[FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)];
[0140];
[0578]
between the origin and a departure terminal
[0004];
[FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)];
[0140];
[0578]
of a first connecting leg,
[0004];
[FIG. 11(home → (on-demand car) → airport)];
[0140];
[0578]
or (ii) a terminating leg between an arrival terminal of a lasting connecting leg and the destination,
[0004];
[FIG. 11(train between plane and hotel)];
[0140];
[0578]
wherein at least one of the origin or destination comprises a location that is not a transport terminal
[0004];
[FIG. 11(see hotel or home)];
[0140];
[0578]
Because Benque (US 20150294238 A1) was not relied upon for the contentious limitations, and Willard (US 20150242944 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully submits that the above argument is not persuasive.
To the examiner’s best understanding, beginning on page 17, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record, specifically Benque (US 20150294238 A1), fails to disclose, “identify one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs”. To the examiner beat understanding, the instant specification does not explicitly recite the terminology “terminal pair”. However, the instant specification is replete with “first departure” and “first arrival” terminals (see at least [0018]). Therefore, the examiner will interpret “terminal pair” as terminals at the origin and destination, or origin and layover/stopover. Regarding “identify one or more departure-arrival terminal pairs”, Benque (US 20150294238 A1) discloses “[0022] This data may define a starting location or “origin”, an ending location or “destination”, and one or more trip constraints”.
Because Benque (US 20150294238 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
To the examiner’s best understanding, beginning on page 18, the applicant has contended Benque (US 20150294238 A1) fails to disclose:
determine at least one generalized time constraint
[0003] The travel planning program may then determine and compare the possible travel options between the origin and destination for periods of time corresponding to the requested departure and arrival times;
[0021] plan a trip satisfying a segmentation time constraint without the traveler having to specify in advance a place or time where they desire to include a break in travel, referred to herein as a stopover ... [0022] The trip constraints may specify that the stopover occur at a particular location, at a particular time, have a particular duration, or include a particular activity. The trip constraints may also specify a constraint on one or more segments of the trip, such as a maximum or minimum allowable segment duration, allowable types of segment (e.g., air, rail, water, or road segment), or a desired combination of types of segments (e.g., a rail segment and an air segment) ... [0023] search for travel proposals that satisfy segment and stopover time constraints without a need to specify a particular time or place for the stopover;
[0035] The trip constraints data 56 may define conditions relating to one or more time constraints on one or more of the segments or stopovers comprising the desired trip. These conditions may include: (1) a segment constraint, such as a minimum or maximum allowable segment duration, and (2) a stopover constraint, such as a minimum or a maximum allowable stopover duration;
[0046]define ranking criteria including a cost of the segments, preferred modes of transportation or the types of segments comprising the travel proposal, classes of service for the segments, distances of the segments, and desired travel time of the segments over and above any temporal trip constraints
applicable at the at least one arrival terminal or the at least one departure terminal
[0003] The travel planning program may then determine and compare the possible travel options between the origin and destination for periods of time corresponding to the requested departure and arrival times;
[0021] plan a trip satisfying a segmentation time constraint without the traveler having to specify in advance a place or time where they desire to include a break in travel, referred to herein as a stopover ... [0022] The trip constraints may specify that the stopover occur at a particular location, at a particular time, have a particular duration, or include a particular activity. The trip constraints may also specify a constraint on one or more segments of the trip, such as a maximum or minimum allowable segment duration, allowable types of segment (e.g., air, rail, water, or road segment), or a desired combination of types of segments (e.g., a rail segment and an air segment) ... [0023] search for travel proposals that satisfy segment and stopover time constraints without a need to specify a particular time or place for the stopover;
[0035] The trip constraints data 56 may define conditions relating to one or more time constraints on one or more of the segments or stopovers comprising the desired trip. These conditions may include: (1) a segment constraint, such as a minimum or maximum allowable segment duration, and (2) a stopover constraint, such as a minimum or a maximum allowable stopover duration;
[0046]define ranking criteria including a cost of the segments, preferred modes of transportation or the types of segments comprising the travel proposal, classes of service for the segments, distances of the segments, and desired travel time of the segments over and above any temporal trip constraints
based, at least in part, on the forecasted at least one transit time
[0059] the ranking criteria may be based on traveler preferences, and may be applied based on the content of the density tables 80, e.g., the distance 84 and estimated travel time … [0060] Each route may include a minimum number (e.g., at least one) of stopovers at locations that have been determined to be capable of satisfying the trip constraint. In addition, the segments defining each stopover may be selected to optimize travel time, distance, and/or route continuity ... The scheduling engine 74 may attempt to schedule segments having departure and arrival times that satisfy conditions related to the segment and stopover constraints;
[0067] The ranking process may be configured, for example, so that the routes having lower relative cost, total travel time, or that cover a shorter distance are ranked higher relative to routes having higher relative cost, total travel time, or that cover a longer distance ... [0068] In block 108, the set of travel proposals 76 may be generated based on one or more routes from the set of routes 72. To this end, the routes may be selected and populated with segments based on the departure and arrival time data 55 and segment schedule data received from the scheduling database 62. A route may be selected if there are combinations of scheduled segments for the links comprising the route that allow the resulting travel proposal to satisfy the trip constraints. Populating the selected routes may include generating one or more combinations of segments connecting the origin and destination by selecting a scheduled segment for each link of the selected route. Because each link may be served by more than one segment, more than one combination of segments may be generated for each route;
[0073] The routes may be generated based on market information received from the routing database 63, such as the starting location-ending location pair 82, distance 84, estimated travel time 86, or date 88 ... ranking criteria may be applied to each route in the subset so that the routes are ranked within the subset based on predefined ranking criteria, such as distance, cost, or estimated travel time; also see [0078-0079] In response to determining the maximum allowable travel time, [0090-0091]
As cited above, Benque (US 20150294238 A1) discloses, general time constraints, for at least one arrival or departure terminal, based upon an overall trip time. Because the prior art of Willard (US 20150242944 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
To the examiner’s best understanding, beginning on page 18, the applicant has contended that the prior art of Willard (US 20150242944 A1) fails to disclose:
each departure-arrival terminal pair being associated with a connecting transport mode having a fixed schedule (FS) model, a variable schedule (VS) model or an on-demand (OD) model for an associated one or more connecting legs connecting a departure terminal and an arrival terminal of the departure-arrival terminal pair, or a combination thereof
See figures 11 and 12 for a variety of transportation modes that can work in any combination for any leg of a trip
PNG
media_image1.png
510
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1: Willard fig. 11
PNG
media_image2.png
500
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2: Willard fig. 12
The examiner respectfully submits that Willard (US 20150242944 A1) discloses a method for multimodal transportation that leverages both public and private transportation to provide transportation for any leg of a trip. Because Willard (US 20150242944 A1) in view of Benque (US 20150294238 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection on claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Lastly, to the examiner’s best understanding, beginning on page 19, the applicant has contended that the prior art relied upon for the rejection of claim 1 are two non-analogous systems and would not be obvious to combine. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior at of Willard (US 20150242944 A1) and Benque (US 20150294238 A1) share common classification G06Q 10, Information And Communication Technology Specially Adapted For Administrative, Commercial, Financial, Managerial Or Supervisory Purposes; Systems Or Methods Specially Adapted For Administrative, Commercial, Financial, Managerial Or Supervisory Purposes: Administration; Management. Further, both a directed towards both a directed towards multimodal transportation and scheduling. Because the prior art shares common classification and are both directed towards managing multimodal transportation, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663