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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed March 19, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 have been amended.
Clam 21 has been newly submitted.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Claim 1 pertains to modifying a specific airline flight reservation on a specific computer system known as a Global Distribution System (GDS) server. The modifications are preformed using a novel graphical user interface that promotes efficiency and convenience of travel agents and airline customers and stores the modification according to predefined rules defined for airlines that dictate the specific format used. Claim 1, for example, recites that a graphical user interface is rendered which simultaneously displays two different display regions (a real- time "split screen" view) showing both original itinerary information as stored on the GDS server and a modified flight itinerary used to modify the flight itinerary stored on the GDS server. The modifications based on the graphical user input are automatically converted to a plurality of GDS commands that are issued to the GDS server. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed elements do not fall within the categories of mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activities or mental processes because they improve the functionality of a specific machine according to predefined rules in a useful and novel way.
Specifically, methods of organizing human activity, as defined in the 2019 PEG, may be 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). Id. at 52. Applicant asserts that the claimed elements broadly relate to a Global Distribution System server capable of interaction via a novel graphical user interfaces that enable booking and modifying flight reservations in a split screen view of both an original flight reservation and a modified flight reservation according to predefined airline rules, which has nothing to do with "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)" as claimed in the Office Action. Rather, the claims relate to computer-implemented techniques using a GDS server to modify or cancel a database entry that is tied to a particular machine (a GDS server) using a specific format defined by airline rules. Nor do the claims merely recite "presenting a user information making changes to an existing flight reservation" as the claims encompass far more than presenting information. For example, the steps of "modifying the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number on the GDS server in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number" and "automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server" go beyond merely presenting information, as alleged in the Office Action.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specification [0064] and [0071] discuss the automatically generating GDS commands at a high level of generality by only explaining that the requests are “mapped to one or more commands” without any details of how mapping to commands is accomplished. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). In other words, the claimed command generation for communication with a GDS is described at a high level of generality in the specification and amounts to the use of a computer as a tool to automate the mapping of commands described in specification [0064] and [0071]. The specification in [0059], [0066] also describes the means of communicating commands to a GDS as the use of an existing API, which is the generic use of a computer. See also cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("The claims apply the abstract idea on a computer by replacing the human intermediary with a GUI and API, but as the Board concluded, representative claim 1 'merely recites generic and conventional computer components (i.e., "processor," "GUI," and "API") and functionality for carrying out' the abstract idea.").
The simultaneous presentation of an original itinerary and a modified itinerary is not an improvement to the graphical user interface and instead is an improvement to the booking user. This is similar to the arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly of Trading Technologies. See Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The court in Trading Technologies determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, providing the booking user split screen information is an improvement to user experience which is not an improvement to computer functionality. See Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). (“We have also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality.”) See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Similar to the claims in Enfish, the claimed embodiments are patentable because they improve the way in which GDS servers can function modify or cancel reservations using novel graphical user interface elements, including rendering a graphical user interface which simultaneously displays two different display regions (a real-time "split screen" view) showing both original itinerary information retrieved from the remote GDS system and a modified flight itinerary to be stored on the GDS server. Advantageously, the inputs to the graphical user interface are automatically issued as a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server, which is a significant advancement over existing techniques for modifying reservations via a command line interface that accepts commands one at a time. For example, rather than needing to enter multiple GDS commands manually into a legacy command line interface, the claimed embodiment can automatically generate multiple commands based on the input received by the GUI. This is a significant improvement in efficiency and convenience that corrects a well-known deficiency in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Enfish decision was directed to configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table. The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, or instead on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The court in Enfish found the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because the claims in Enfish changed the way a computer creates databases by eliminating a significant amount of design and setup required for traditional database structures. The instant claims, unlike those in Enfish, invoke the use of computers merely as a tool rather than improving the computer’s capabilities.
The simultaneous presentation of an original itinerary and a modified itinerary is not an improvement to the graphical user interface and instead is an improvement to the booking user. This is similar to the arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly of Trading Technologies. See Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The court in Trading Technologies determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, providing the booking user split screen information is an improvement to user experience which is not an improvement to computer functionality. See Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). (“We have also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality.”) See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Pursuant to the 2019 PEG, under the second part of the Alice analysis, Examiners are required to identify and evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under the second part of the test. Id. at 56. If the Examiner determines that the elements (or combination of elements) amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible. Applicant asserts that the limitations of Claim 1 include additional elements of rendering a graphical user interface on a remote computer system which simultaneously displays two different display regions (a real-time "split screen" view) showing both original itinerary information retrieved from the remote GDS system and a modified flight itinerary to be released to the GDS server. Moreover, the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number is used to modify the GDS server in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updating the information in a GDS server is a generic computer function that does not modify the GDS server itself. The claimed interface is performing a basic input function. The claims then performing retrieving and updating data in a database which are both generic computer functions. The Applicant provides no details on changing the function of the GDS itself. Applicant has applied the functions of a generic interface to a GDS which is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer. See Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 868 F.3d 1350, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ([The claims] do not improve the functioning of the computer or barcode system itself. Instead, they apply those functionalities in the context of processing return mail.)
The simultaneous presentation of an original itinerary and a modified itinerary is not an improvement to the graphical user interface and instead is an improvement to the booking user. This is similar to the arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly of Trading Technologies. See Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The court in Trading Technologies determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Alternatively providing the booking user more information is an improvement to user experience which is not an improvement to computer functionality. See Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). (“We have also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality.”) See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Applicant respectfully submits that under the second part of the Alice analysis, the recited limitations are significantly more than the recited judicial exception of methods of organizing human activity because transmits the flight reservation number to the GDS server responsive to user input, receiving at the GDS server a reservation modification input from the remote computer system, wherein the reservation modification input by interaction with a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device of the remote computer system, wherein the GUI comprises a split screen view showing both the original itinerary and the modified itinerary, and modifying the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number on the GDS server in a specific format by automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server according to rules associated with the flight reservation number constitute unconventional steps which transform the allegedly abstract idea into a patent- eligible invention. For instance, prior art GDS system are typically accessed using a command line interface or the like and therefore the GUI interaction represents unconventional steps by using novel graphical user interface elements that interact with a GDS server in a specific format according to predefined rules which transform the allegedly abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Applicants respectfully point the Examiner to paragraph [0004] of the Background section of the instant application, which discusses how existing approaches to managing existing travel arrangements require airline employees and travel agents to use a legacy command-line interface that is inefficient [entering one command at a time], or only allow a customer/agent to exchange one ticket for another.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specification [0064] and [0071] discuss the automatically generating GDS commands at a high level of generality by only explaining that the requests are “mapped to one or more commands” without any details of how mapping to commands is accomplished. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). In other words, the claimed command generation for communication with a GDS is described at a high level of generality in the specification and amounts to the use of a computer as a tool to automate the mapping of commands described in specification [0064] and [0071]. The specification in [0059], [0066] also describes the means of communicating commands to a GDS as the use of an existing API, which is the generic use of a computer. See also cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("The claims apply the abstract idea on a computer by replacing the human intermediary with a GUI and API, but as the Board concluded, representative claim 1 'merely recites generic and conventional computer components (i.e., "processor," "GUI," and "API") and functionality for carrying out' the abstract idea.").
For example, in RecogniCorp, the inventors purported to solve the problem of encoding images in a way that required “less memory and bandwidth.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017). While the claims used an “image code” to reproduce an image based on a mathematical operation, id., they did not adequately capture the inventors’ asserted technical contribution, because the claims recited no more than “standard encoding and decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information.” Id. at 1326 (emphasis added). Thus, the court found that the claims merely amounted to an ineligible abstract process “for which computers are invoked merely as a tool,” not a software invention that actually improved the functioning of a computer. Id. at 1327 (emphasis added) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The instant claims utilize generic computer components, as discussed in the rejection below, and similar to RecogniCorp the instant claims amount to an ineligible abstract process for which computers are invoked merely as a tool, not a as a software invention that actually improves the functioning of a computer.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Applicants respectfully assert that none of the references cited in the rejections teach or suggest a GDS server that receives a reservation modification input from a remote computer system, wherein the reservation modification input is provided using a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device of the remote computer system, and modifying the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number on the GDS server by automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number, as claimed. Moreover, these references are also silent regarding a split-screen GUI having a first graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing an original trip itinerary, wherein the original trip itinerary comprises first flight data associated with the flight reservation number, and a second graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing a modified trip itinerary, wherein the modified trip itinerary comprises second flight data, wherein the second flight data is different than the first flight data, wherein the first graphical display region and the second graphical display region are displayed simultaneously in the GUI, as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below, Chung teaches the claimed split-screen GUI. As discussed in the rejection below, both Harris and Bessassi disclose communicating different types of modifications with a GDS using the format required by that GDS. Bessassi goes into detail regarding the different types of commands used to communicate with a GDS to maintain up to date booking records. Examiner maintains, that the combination of Harris and Bessassi teach the limitation argued here by applicant.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant presented the following arguments:
While Chung may show an existing trip itinerary alongside other flights and other airlines (e.g., Air Berlin, Air France, British Airways, etc.), Chung fails to teach or suggest showing an existing trip itinerary alongside a modified trip itinerary, as claimed. While paragraphs [0139], [0147], [0149], and [0151] of Chung may mention that different options for modifying a reservation can be displayed, and that different search results can be pinned, Chung is nevertheless entirely silent regarding display both the original itinerary and a modified itinerary simultaneously. In contrast, as depicted in Figure 5 of the instant specification, embodiments of the present invention can display both the original trip itinerary and the modified itinerary side by side simultaneously.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that the figures are a part of the disclosure and therefore the contents of the figures cannot be considered “entirely silent.” The cited figures show the comparison view discussed in the cited paragraphs teaches the claimed split screen. Chung Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-8, Figs. 10-12, Fig. 17 and Fig. 20 all show split screen views that display side by side modifications for flight duration options, airline options, and take off options. In other words, the cited portions of Chung are not silent on simultaneous display of an original itinerary and a modified itinerary. See MPEP 2123(I).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Moreover, Applicants assert that Chung, Harris, and Bessassi fail to teach or suggest modifying the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number on the GDS server in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number, let alone automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server based on the reservation modification input, as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection below, both Harris and Bessassi disclose communicating different types of modifications with a GDS using the format required by that GDS. Bessassi goes into detail regarding the different types of commands used to communicate with a GDS to maintain up to date booking records. Examiner maintains, that the combination of Harris and Bessassi teach the limitation argued here by applicant.
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 1-21 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.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 14-21 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 21, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of presenting a user information for making changes to an existing flight reservation, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting modifying a reservation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations) by reciting an interaction with a global distribution system to perform a modification to a travel agreement between a user and a travel provider. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) by reciting instructions for a user to make a modification to a flight using predefined airline rules. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The method of organizing human activity of “presenting a user information making changes to an existing flight reservation,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving a flight reservation number, transmitting a flight reservation number to a GDS, accessing flight information in a GDS, receiving reservation modification or cancellation, and issuing commands for reservation modification or confirmation. The mere nominal recitation of a computer system, a graphical user interface, a memory, a display device, an input device, a network interface, a remote GDS, and a processor does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 4-7, 11-13, and 18-19, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: displaying cost information, converting the currency of the costs, displaying a confirmation screen, and displaying a confirmation button.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 recite the additional elements: a computer system, a graphical user interface, a memory, a display device, an input device, a network interface, a remote GDS, and a processor. This computer system, memory, display device, input device, network interface, remote GDS, and processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by displaying a graphical user interface, and responding to a graphical user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. The accessing and issuing information from a remote GDS is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering itinerary data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any 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. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of a travel agent in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing travel agency process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a computer system, a memory, a display device, an input device, a network interface, a remote GDS, and a processor. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a computer system (Specification [0074]), a memory (Specification [0074]), a display device (Specification [0075]), an input device (Specification [0074]), a network interface (Specification [0075]), a remote GDS (Specification [0051], [0055]), and a processor (Specification [0074]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a computer system, a memory, a display device, an input device, a network interface, a remote GDS, and a processor. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by displaying a graphical user interface, and responding to a graphical user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) by reciting accessing and issuing information from a remote GDS. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting flight reservations on a GDS. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 2-3, 9-10, 15-16, and 20, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 15-16 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by receiving information at an interface, inputting information in a GDS, and accessing information on a GDS. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 15-16 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) by accessing information in a GDS. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 20 limit the field of use by reciting the internet. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
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 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) 1-4, 6-7, 14-16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2008/0162197 A1), hereinafter Harris, in view of Chung et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0146974 A1), hereinafter Chung, in view of Bessassi et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2018/0211189 A1), hereinafter Bessassi.
Claim 1.
Harris discloses a method of modifying flight reservation information using a global distribution system (GDS) server, the method comprising:
accessing flight information stored on the remote GDS server associated with a flight reservation number, wherein a remote computer system transmits the flight reservation number to the GDS server responsive to user input (Harris [0045], [0047] GDS interface tool called Runway; [0054] based on the ticket number and knowledge of the particular GDS in which the ticket information is kept, a robotic job retrieves the passenger name record corresponding to the ticket from the particular GDS);
receiving at the GDS server a reservation modification input from the remote computer system (Harris [0046], [0058] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen for entering a decision to accept or decline the terms in the response; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0053] travel agency may assign every passenger a unique ID to access information about previously purchased tickets; [0054] ticket information may be entered manually),
wherein the reservation modification input is provided using a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device of the remote computer system (Harris [0038] CRS and GDS are used interchangeably; [0046], [0053], [0054] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen form manually entering tickets; [0047] Quick Exchange GUI may communicate with all other elements; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI), wherein the GUI comprises:
a first graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing an original trip itinerary, wherein the original trip itinerary comprises first flight data associated with the flight reservation number (Harris [0046], [0053], [0054] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen form manually entering tickets; [0046], [0058] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen for entering a decision to accept or decline the terms in the response; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI); and
Regarding the following limitation:
a second graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing a modified trip itinerary, wherein the modified trip itinerary comprises second flight data, wherein the second flight data is different than the first flight data, wherein the first graphical display region and the second graphical display region are displayed simultaneously in the GUI; and
Harris discloses displaying modified trip itinerary comprising second flight data, wherein the second flight data is different than the first flight data (Harris [0046], [0058] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen for entering a decision to accept or decline the terms in the response; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI). However, Harris does not disclose a second graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing a modified trip itinerary, wherein the modified trip itinerary comprises second flight data, wherein the second flight data is different than the first flight data, wherein the first graphical display region and the second graphical display region are displayed simultaneously in the GUI, and wherein the second flight data is rendered responsive to the user input comprising the reservation modification input, but Chung does (Chung Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-8, Figs. 10-12, Fig. 17 and Fig. 20, [0139], [0147], [0149], [0151] display comparative flight information on the user interface; [0148] view options in a different part of the screen to the original flight information, such as in a list).
The known technique providing a comparison view of flight modifications of Chung, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Harris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are flight booking systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of providing a comparison view of flight modifications of Chung to the quick exchange GUI of Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chung to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a comparison view of flight modifications into flight booking systems. Further, applying a comparison viewer to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient to allow users to visualize the differences between flights and what gain or trad-off the alternative will have, as suggested by Chung (Chung [0168]).
Regarding the following limitation:
modifying the existing flight reservation associated with the flight reservation number on the GDS server by automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server based on the reservation modification input in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number.
Harris discloses a customer modifying an existing flight reservation by accepting or declining a ticket exchange on the GDS server based on the reservation modification input in a specific format according to rules associated with the flight reservation number (Harris [0058] customer decides whether to accept or decline the exchange; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS; [0063] complete transaction). However, Harris does not disclose that completing the ticket exchange transaction involves automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server to modify the existing flight reservation information associated with the flight reservation number, but Bessassi does (Bessassi [0008], [0017], [0070] removing the identifier for the reservation record from the booking folder; [0077] each booking file may correspond to a PNR; [0097], [0105] transmit a commit command to the GDS and the GDS may commit the booking folder record by generating a booking folder record identifier; [0099] create one or more reservation records (e.g., PNRs) that hold reservations for the identified travel products and the client application may send a query to the GDS that identifies the reservation records to be added where transmitting includes the record locators; [0100] GDS may proceed to associate the reservation records with the booking folder; [0104] indicating a new reservation record should be substituted involves removing the old reservation record).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of committing a transaction to a GDS after completing reservation transaction of Bessassi to Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bessassi to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such updating a GDS with completed reservation modifications. Further, applying GDS updating to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient engagement of third-party resources such as a user’s travel tracking apps by using a GDS as a centralized location for updated transaction data thereby increasing consumer satisfaction by allowing the simultaneous use of multiple platforms (Bessassi [0004], [0040], [0085], [0092], [0108]).
Claim 2.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
receiving a flight reservation number type (Harris [0053], [0054] enter ticket information; [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS);
inputting the flight reservation number type to the GDS server (Harris [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS); and
accessing flight information stored on the GDS server associated with the flight reservation number based on the flight reservation number type (Harris [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS).
Claim 3.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
receiving GDS identification information indicating a specific GDS that stores the existing flight reservation (Harris [0053], [0054] enter ticket information; [0053] which GDS holds the ticket information; [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS);
accessing flight information stored on the specific GDS associated with the flight reservation number based on the GDS identification information (Harris [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS).
Claim 4.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
the remote computer system displaying costs associated with modifying the existing flight reservation on the graphical user interface according to the reservation modification information (Harris [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI).
Claim 6.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
the remote computer system displaying a confirmation screen on the graphical user interface before releasing the reservation modification information to the remote GDS (Harris [0058] customer decides whether to accept or decline the exchange; [0063] complete transaction).
Claim 7.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 6, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
information of the existing flight reservation displayed on the graphical user interface (Harris [0054] provide unused ticket information; [0058] rapid reprise returns a response (indicating the revised ticket price) to Runway which returns Rapid Reprice’s response to Quick Exchange GUI);
information of the reservation modification information displayed on the graphical user interface (Harris [0054] provide unused ticket information; [0058] rapid reprise returns a response (indicating the revised ticket price) to Runway which returns Rapid Reprice’s response to Quick Exchange GUI); and
an interactive confirmation button displayed on the graphical user interface for confirming the reservation modification information before modifying the existing reservation on the GDS server (Harris Fig 1., [0046] showing decline and commit buttons; [0058] customer decides whether to accept or decline the exchange; [0063] complete transaction).
Claim 14.
Harris discloses a global distribution system (GDS) server, the comprising:
a memory for storing data (Harris [0031] memory; [0032] personal computer);
a network interface for communicating with a remote computer system according to predefined rules of airlines associated with flight reservations stored on the GDS server (Harris [0031] computers have network access; [0033] parties communicate via internet; [0045], [0047] GDS interface tool; [0056] Runway is able to tailor a request to comply with the requirements of whichever GDS); and
a processor (Harris [0031] processor; [0032] personal computer) operable to:
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches the remaining limitations of claim 14 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 15.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of claim 15 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 16.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of claim 16 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 18.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 19.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 7.
Claim 20.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches all the elements of Claim 14, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
wherein the network interface is configured to communicate with the remote GDS over the Internet (Harris [0031], [0033], [0034], [0045], [0047]).
Claim 21.
Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung teaches the remaining limitations of claim 21 as shown above in claim 14.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung further in view of Ben-Yitschak et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2010/0305984 A1), hereinafter Ben-Yitschak.
Claim 5.
Harris in view of Bessassi teaches all the elements of Claim 4, as shown above. However, Harris does not disclose the following limitation, but Ben-Yitschak does:
automatically converting a currency associated with the costs to a different currency and displaying the costs on the graphical user interface using the different currency (Ben-Yitschak [0199], [0229], [0232] convert local currency to preferred currency and display user’s preferred currency for an itinerary).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of converting a price in a foreign currency into a user’s preferred currency of Ben-Yitschak to Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ben-Yitschak to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such currency conversion. Further, applying currency conversion to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient decision making by a user attempting to compare a price for an original flight to a new flight by automating a manual conversion because when presented with flights in multiple currencies a user would manually convert prices to the same currency in order to make a decision on the pricing for a new flight.
Claim 17.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Ben-Yitschak teaches all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claims 4 and 5.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Bessassi and Chung further in view of Cholak et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2013/0013351 A1), hereinafter Cholak.
Claim 8.
Harris discloses a method of canceling a flight reservation stored on a global distribution system (GDS), the method comprising:
accessing flight information stored on the GDS server associated with a flight reservation number, wherein a remote computer system transmits the flight reservation number to the GDS server responsive to user input (Harris [0045], [0047] GDS interface tool called Runway; [0046] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen form manually entering tickets; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0053] travel agency may assign every passenger a unique ID to access information about previously purchased tickets; [0054] ticket information may be entered manually and a robotic job retrieves the passenger name record corresponding to the ticket from the particular GDS);
Regarding the following limitations, Harris teaches performing the following limitations with an exchange rather than a cancellation:
receiving a cancelation request to cancel the existing flight reservation at the GDS from the remote computer system and
Harris discloses using a graphical user interface to receive a flight exchange request at the GDS from the remote computer system (Harris [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI). However, Harris does not disclose receiving a cancellation request, but Cholak does (Cholak [0094], [0095] global distribution systems; [0133], [0150] cancel request; [0154] deal with cancel requests at the processing layer; [0156], [0159] update transaction in the GDS).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the cancellation of Cholak for the exchange process of Harris. Both an exchange and a cancellation are known procedures in the travel industry for handling an unused an original flight. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of travel booking for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Harris’s system with the improved functionality to prevent duplicate flight entries for a user traveling to a destination thereby clarifying the flight records by cancelling the original flight before rebooking rather than doing an exchange.
Harris, as modified above by Cholak, teaches:
wherein the cancelation request is provided using a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device of the remote computer system (Harris [0038] CRS and GDS are used interchangeably; [0046], [0053], [0054] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen form manually entering tickets; [0047] Quick Exchange GUI may communicate with all other elements; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI), wherein the GUI comprises:
a first graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing an original trip fare (Harris [0046], [0053], [0054] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen form manually entering tickets; [0046], [0058] Quick Exchange GUI may have a screen for entering a decision to accept or decline the terms in the response; [0051] customer may use quick exchange GUI to change an existing flight reservation; [0054] retrieve ticket information based on knowledge of the particular GDS and any of various identifiers; [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI); and
Harris does not disclose the following limitation, but Chung does:
a second graphical display region configured to be rendered on the display device and comprising display elements representing refund information associated with the cancelation request, wherein the first graphical display region and the second graphical display region are displayed simultaneously in the GUI (Chung Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Figs. 5-8, Figs. 10-12, Fig. 17 and Fig. 20, [0139], [0147], [0149], [0151] display comparative flight information on the user interface; [0148] view options in a different part of the screen to the original flight information, such as in a list); and
The known technique providing a comparison view of flight modifications of Chung, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Harris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are flight booking systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of providing a comparison view of flight modifications of Chung to the quick exchange GUI of Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chung to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a comparison view of flight modifications into flight booking systems. Further, applying a comparison viewer to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient to allow users to visualize the differences between flights and what gain or trad-off the alternative will have, as suggested by Chung (Chung [0168]).
Harris in view of Chung and Cholak does not disclose the following limitation, but Bessassi does:
updating the GDS server to cancel the existing flight reservation associated with the flight reservation number by automatically issuing a plurality of GDS commands to the GDS server according to a predefined format associated with the flight reservation number (Bessassi [0008], [0017], [0070] removing the identifier for the reservation record from the booking folder; [0077] each booking file may correspond to a PNR; [0097], [0105] transmit a commit command to the GDS and the GDS may commit the booking folder record by generating a booking folder record identifier; [0099] create one or more reservation records (e.g., PNRs) that hold reservations for the identified travel products and the client application may send a query to the GDS that identifies the reservation records to be added where transmitting includes the record locators; [0100] GDS may proceed to associate the reservation records with the booking folder; [0104] indicating a new reservation record should be substituted involves removing the old reservation record).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of committing a transaction to a GDS after completing reservation transaction of Bessassi to Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bessassi to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such updating a GDS with completed reservation modifications. Further, applying GDS updating to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient engagement of third-party resources such as a user’s travel tracking apps by using a GDS as a centralized location for updated transaction data thereby increasing consumer satisfaction by allowing the simultaneous use of multiple platforms (Bessassi [0004], [0040], [0085], [0092], [0108]).
Claim 9.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak teaches all the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Harris teaches all the elements of claim 9 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 10.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak teaches all the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Harris teaches all the elements of claim 10 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 12.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak teaches all the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
displaying a confirmation screen on the graphical user interface before updating the GDS server (Harris [0058] customer decides whether to accept or decline the exchange; [0063] complete transaction).
Claim 13.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak teaches all the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Additionally, Harris discloses:
an interactive confirmation button displayed on the graphical user interface for confirming the cancelation request before updating the GDS server (Harris Fig 1., [0046] showing decline and commit buttons; [0058] customer decides whether to accept or decline the exchange; [0063] complete transaction).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak further in view of Ben-Yitschak and Edwards et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2020/0020051 A1), hereinafter Edwards.
Claim 11.
Harris in view of Bessassi, Chung, and Cholak teaches all the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Harris discloses displaying information an exchange (Harris [0058]), however Harris does not disclose the following limitation:
automatically converting a refund amount of the cancelation request to a different currency; and
Regarding the above limitation, Harris in view of Edwards teaches determining a refund associated with a cancellation that made during a flight exchange (Edwards [0022], [0051], [0076], [0079]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the cancellation refund of Edwards for the exchange process of Harris. Both an exchange and a cancellation/rebook are known procedures in the travel industry for changing an original flight. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of travel booking for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Harris’s system with the improved functionality to prevent duplicate flight entries for a user traveling to a destination thereby clarifying the flight records by cancelling the original flight before rebooking rather than doing an exchange.
However, neither Harris nor Edwards teaches converting a currency, but Ben-Yitschak does (Ben-Yitschak [0199], [0229], [0232] convert local currency to preferred currency and display user’s preferred currency for an itinerary).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of converting a price in a foreign currency into a user’s preferred currency of Ben-Yitschak to Harris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ben-Yitschak to the teaching of Harris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such currency conversion. Further, applying currency conversion to Harris, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient decision making by a user attempting to compare a price for an original flight to a new flight by automating a manual conversion because when presented with flights in multiple currencies a user would manually convert prices to the same currency in order to make a decision on the pricing for a new flight.
Harris, as modified above by Edwards and Ben-Yitschak teaches:
the remote computer system displaying the refund amount on the graphical user interface using the different currency (Harris [0055] customer wishes to exchange unused ticket for a new ticket; [0058] return rapid reprice indicating revised ticket price to the quick exchange GUI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights