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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks Jan. 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections, the objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claimed color coded icons reflect an integration into a practical application, citing Example 37. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because it is not clear how rearranging icons in a user interface, as in Example 37, is similar to color coding information, as in the present claims. Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete 101 rejections.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts Altman does not teach allowing the supervisor to set an acceptable deviation as claimed because Altman only teaches generating a message for a manager that lower cost options are available. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Altman teaches both: generating a message for manager with lower costs options, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10; and the manager approving or denying the request, ¶¶[0076], [0087] and Figs. 6 and 10. That is, Altman teaches allowing the supervisor to set an acceptable deviation because Altman teaches the manager can approve or deny the request.
Second, regarding claim 7, Applicant asserts the cited references do not teach using color coded icons to indicate whether specified rates are above or below the established rates by a set percentage. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, Rowley is not required to teach providing a supervisor with a graphical indication because Altman was relied on to teach the concept. Thus the combination of Altman, Slowe and Rowley teach the claimed limitations.
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-6 are directed to a machine; and claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 1
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
… a first database storing information related to various accommodations, the accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and accommodation types;
a second database storing benchmarks including the organization's established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve the accommodation types and the organization's established rates; and
an employee graphical user interface allowing an employee to query the first database to make an accommodations request, the interface allowing the employee to specify the factors related to the accommodations request, the employee graphical user interface presenting the employee with a listing of available accommodations based upon the accommodations request, the listing of available accommodations including a specified rate for each accommodation, the employee graphical user interface allowing the employee to select a plurality desired accommodations from the listing; and
a processor for querying the second database to determine whether the selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks including the established policies regarding accommodation types and established rates, the processor allowing the supervisor to set an acceptable deviation from the established rates; and
a supervisor graphical user interface listing the selected accommodations for a specific geographic area along with a prevailing market rate for accommodations within the specific geographic area, the supervisor graphical user interface also listing the accommodation type, the specified rate, and a color coded icon indicating whether the specified rate is above or below the acceptable deviation, the supervisor graphical user interface also including a drop down menu allowing the supervisor to approve or decline the selected accommodations.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior (i.e., following rules or instructions) because these limitations encompass following and applying polices to actions (i.e., determining if requests comply with existing policies). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
… a first database storing information related to various accommodations, the accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and accommodation types;
a second database storing benchmarks including the organization's established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve the accommodation types and the organization's established rates; and
an employee graphical user interface allowing an employee to query the first database to make an accommodations request, the interface allowing the employee to specify the factors related to the accommodations request, the employee graphical user interface presenting the employee with a listing of available accommodations based upon the accommodations request, the listing of available accommodations including a specified rate for each accommodation, the employee graphical user interface allowing the employee to select a plurality desired accommodations from the listing; and
a processor for querying the second database to determine whether the selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks including the established policies regarding accommodation types and established rates, the processor allowing the supervisor to set an acceptable deviation from the established rates; and
a supervisor graphical user interface listing the selected accommodations for a specific geographic area along with a prevailing market rate for accommodations within the specific geographic area, the supervisor graphical user interface also listing the accommodation type, the specified rate, and a color coded icon indicating whether the specified rate is above or below the acceptable deviation, the supervisor graphical user interface also including a drop down menu allowing the supervisor to approve or decline the selected accommodations.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the first and second databases, the employee graphical user interface, the processor, and the supervisor graphical user interface, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of storing information related to various available accommodations and benchmarks, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of storing data (i.e. storing hotel data on policy data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of querying the database to make an accommodations request, specifying, and presenting a listing of available accommodations, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the steps are no more than using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Fourth, the additional elements of: allowing the employee to select the desired accommodations; listing the accommodations selected by the employee and a color coded icon indicating whether the selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmark; and a drop-down menu for approving or denying the request, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, these limitations essentially limit the process of a manager approving a travel request to a computing environment. Although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a computing environment) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 7
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 7 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
… storing information related to various available accommodations, the available accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and types, and
setting and storing benchmarks reflecting the organizations pre-established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve accommodations and the organization's established rates for accommodations; and
allowing the employee to query the stored information to make an accommodations request and listing in an employee graphical user interface the available accommodations and with the specified rates; and
allowing the employee to select one or more desired accommodations from the listing of available accommodations; and
determining whether selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks, including whether the employee is permitted to reserve the accommodation and whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates; and
visually indicating to the supervisor via a supervisor graphical user interface the selected accommodations along with a prevailing market rate for accommodations within a relevant geographic area, further indicating via color coded icons in the supervisor graphical user interface whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates and permitting the supervisor to approve or decline accommodation requests,
wherein the color coded icons indicate whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates by a set percentage.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior (i.e., following rules or instructions) because these limitations encompass following and applying polices to actions (i.e., determining if requests comply with existing policies). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 7 recites additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
… storing information related to various available accommodations, the available accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and types, and
setting and storing benchmarks reflecting the organizations pre-established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve accommodations and the organization's established rates for accommodations; and
allowing the employee to query the stored information to make an accommodations request and listing in an employee graphical user interface the available accommodations and with the specified rates; and
allowing the employee to select one or more desired accommodations from the listing of available accommodations; and
determining whether selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks, including whether the employee is permitted to reserve the accommodation and whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates; and
visually indicating to the supervisor via a supervisor graphical user interface the selected accommodations along with a prevailing market rate for accommodations within a relevant geographic area, further indicating via color coded icons in the supervisor graphical user interface whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates and permitting the supervisor to approve or decline accommodation requests.
wherein the color coded icons indicate whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates by a set percentage.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of setting and storing information related to various available accommodations and benchmarks, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of storing data (i.e. storing hotel data on policy data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of querying the database to make an accommodations request, and listing of available accommodations, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the steps are no more than using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Third, the additional elements of: allowing the employee to select the desired accommodations; via a supervisor graphical user interface the selected accommodations along with the current market rate for accommodations within a relevant geographic area; and indicating via color coded icons whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, these limitations essentially limit the process of a manager approving a travel request to a computing environment. Although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a computing environment) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use or technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use or technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are all rejected under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of displaying factors selected by the employee. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data (i.e., displaying stored user input).
Claim 3 recites a second abstract idea, a mental process, because claim 3 encompasses mapping the accommodations which is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (discussing CyberSource). Further, Examiner does not find the presence of these two abstract ideas in the claim renders the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.04.I discussing Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (stating combining “one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”).
Claim 3 also recites the additional elements of displaying the mapped accommodations graphically. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of displaying data.
Claims 4 and 5 recite additional elements specifying what is included in the benchmark. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements still only encompass a generic computer function of storing data (i.e., storing user input).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a third party providing rate information. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending and receiving data (e.g., receiving data from another computer system), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman et al, US Pub. No. 2003/0120526, herein referred to as “Altman” in view of Slowe et al, US Pub. No. 2012/0221595, herein referred to as “Slowe”, further in view of Ngongang, US Pub. No. 2013/0132133, herein referred to as “Ngongang”.
Regarding claim 1, Altman teaches:
a first database (database, ¶[0058])
storing information related to various accommodations, the accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations (pulls data on hotels, ¶[0033] and data includes rates, ¶[0040], cities, ¶[0040]);
storing benchmarks including the organization's established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve accommodation types (stores policies related to per diem expenses, ¶[0076], and government, company, or other policies, ¶[0085]; see also ¶¶[0014], [00881] discussing expenses for an individual exceeding a defined dollar amount);
and the organization's established rates (stores amounts for expenses, ¶¶[0123], [0136]);
and an employee graphical user interface allowing an employee to query the first database to make an accommodations request (user selects a city from a map interface to obtain hotel availabilities and rates, ¶[0067] and Fig. 3; see also ¶¶[0049]-[0053] and Fig. 1 discussing user workstations),
the interface allowing the employee to specify the factors related to the accommodations request (user specifies hotel preferences, ¶[0077] and Fig. 7),
the employee graphical user interface presenting the employee with a listing of available accommodations based upon the accommodations request (displays hotel search results and allows user to choose hotel, ¶[0078] and Fig. 8),
the listing of available accommodations including a specified rate for each accommodation (displays accommodations and rates, Fig. 8; see also ¶[0078] discussing Fig. 8),
the employee graphical user interface allowing the employee to select a plurality desired accommodations from the listing (users selects accommodations from search results, ¶[0079]);
and a processor for querying the database to determine whether the selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks including the established policies regarding accommodation types and established rates (program determines whether an option chosen by the user fits within the per diem policies, ¶[0076] and Fig. 6, and where the available options fit within the policies, ¶[0085] and Fig. 10; see also Fig. 9 and ¶[0079] showing an example of a warning when a policy violated, and ¶¶[0049]-[0051] discussing computer system),
the processor allowing the supervisor to set an acceptable deviation from the established rates (generates a message for manager with lower costs options and reasons for the out-of-policy choice, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10; and manager approves or denies the request, ¶¶[0076], [0087] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also Fig. 16 and ¶[0103] showing requests sent to manager);
and a supervisor graphical user interface listing the selected accommodations for a specific geographic area along with a prevailing market rate for accommodations within the specific geographic area (generates a message for manager with lower costs options and reasons for the out-of-policy choice, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also ¶¶[0049]-[0053] and Fig. 1 discussing user workstations),
the supervisor graphical user interface also listing the specified rate (generates a message for manager with lower costs options and reasons for the out-of-policy choice, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also Fig. 9 showing the message for the manager listing the rate),
and a color coded icon indicating whether the specified rate is above or below the acceptable deviation (in-policy and out-of-policy search results are all displayed in different colors so that the user (e.g., employer) can easily see which search results fit within their company's travel policy, ¶[0089] and Figs. 11A and 11B),
the supervisor graphical user interface allowing the supervisor to approve or decline the selected accommodations (manager approves or denies the request, ¶¶[0076], [0087] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also Fig. 16 and ¶[0103] showing requests sent to manager).
However, Altman does not explicitly teach:
a second database
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have a second database because duplication of parts is obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. That is, Altman teaches storing the various data, see e.g., ¶¶[0034], [0058]. Examiner finds no evidence storing the data in one or multiple databases would produce new or unexpected results and accordingly finds the claimed second database obvious in light of the teachings of Altman.
However, Altman does not teach but Slowe does teach:
accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and accommodation types (accommodations are sorted by price, distance from a particular geographic location and hotel rating, e.g., ¶¶[0018], [0022]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman with the hotel information of Slowe because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Altman teaches gathering various information about hotels, e.g., ¶[0033]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that users would likely be interested in all available data (e.g., a rating of the hotel, a description of one or more amenities of the hotel, etc.) and accordingly would have modified Altman to include additional hotel data, e.g., as taught by Slowe.
However, the combination of Altman and Slowe does not teach but Ngongang does teach:
the supervisor graphical user interface also including a drop down menu (manager approves hotel booking via pull down menu, ¶[0048] and Fig. 6)
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing with the hotel information of Altman and Slowe with the pull down menu of Ngongang because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the manager in Altman would need user interface functionality for approving or rejecting the employee requests and accordingly would have modified the combination of Altman and Slowe to provide a functionality, e.g., the pull down menu of Ngongang.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Altman, Slowe and Ngongang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Altman further teaches:
wherein the supervisor graphical user interface also displays the factors identified by the employee for the accommodations request (generates a message for manager with lower costs options and reasons for the out-of-policy choice, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Altman, Slowe and Ngongang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Slowe further teaches:
wherein the listing of available accommodations are graphically presented to the employee on a map (hotel search results are displayed on a map, ¶[0055] and Fig. 7).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman with the mapping of hotel search results of Slowe because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Altman teaches displaying hotel search results, e.g., Fig. 8. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that users would likely be interested the hotel search results being laid out visually in a map so they can see where the hotels are relative to landmarks, etc. and accordingly would have modified Altman to display the search results on a map, e.g., as taught by Slowe.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Altman, Slowe and Ngongang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Altman further teaches:
wherein the benchmark reflects a company policy (stores policies related to per diem expenses, ¶¶[00876]-[0076], and government, company, or other policies, ¶[0085]).
However, Altman does not teach but Slowe does teach:
for the size of the accommodation (number of room occupants, ¶¶[0022], [0024]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman with the hotel information of Slowe because Altman suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Altman teaches using government, company, or other policies, ¶[0085], when analyzing hotel requests. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these policies would likely limit the amount of occupants the rooms could be reserved for (i.e., not reserving rooms for more people than is needed).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Altman, Slowe and Ngongang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Altman further teaches:
wherein a third party provides rate information for the database (pulls data on hotels from various sources including hotel’s web site, ¶[0033]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman, Slowe and Ngongang in view of Rowely et al WO 2019/075189, herein referred to as “Rowely”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Altman, Slowe and Ngongang teach all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Rowley does teach:
wherein the supervisor graphical user interface also indicates whether the price for an accommodation is above or below the prevailing market rate by a set percentage (indicates market rates and percentages below market rates, Fig. 5 and ¶[0084])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman and Slowe with the display of market rates and savings of Rowely because Altman suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Altman teaches using preferred suppliers (for example, when there are volume contracts with the supplier) when the user searches for hotels, ¶[0070]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized users and managers would likely be interested in seeing the savings gained when using preferred suppliers and accordingly would have modified Altman and Slowe to show these savings, i.e., as taught by Rowely.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in view of Slowe, further in view of Rowley.
Regarding claim 7, Altman teaches:
storing information related to various accommodations, the accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations (pulls data on hotels, ¶[0033] and data includes rates, ¶[0040], cities, ¶[0040]);
setting and storing benchmarks including the organization's established policies regarding the employee's ability to reserve accommodation types (stores policies related to per diem expenses, ¶[0076], and government, company, or other policies, ¶[0085]; see also ¶¶[0014], [00881] discussing expenses for an individual exceeding a defined dollar amount);
and the organization's established rates (stores amounts for expenses, ¶¶[0123], [0136]);
allowing an employee to query the first database to make an accommodations request (user selects a city from a map interface to obtain hotel availabilities and rates, ¶[0067] and Fig. 3; see also ¶¶[0049]-[0053] and Fig. 1 discussing user workstations),
and listing in an employee graphical user interface of available accommodations and with the specified rates (displays hotel search results and allows user to choose hotel, ¶[0078] and Fig. 8),
allowing the employee to select a one or more desired accommodations from the listing of available accusations (users selects accommodations from search results, ¶[0079]);
determining whether the selected accommodations adhere to the stored benchmarks including whether the employee is permitted to reserve the accommodation and whether the specified rates are above or below the organization’s established rates (program determines whether an option chosen by the user fits within the per diem policies, ¶[0076] and Fig. 6, and where the available options fit within the policies, ¶[0085] and Fig. 10; see also Fig. 9 and ¶[0079] showing an example of a warning when a policy violated, and ¶¶[0049]-[0051] discussing computer system),
visually indicating to the supervisor via a supervisor graphical user interface the selected accommodations along with a prevailing market rate for accommodates with a relevant geographic area (generates a message for manager with lower costs options and reasons for the out-of-policy choice, ¶¶[0076], [0086] and Figs. 6 and 10; and manager approves or denies the request, ¶¶[0076], [0087] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also Fig. 16 and ¶[0103] showing requests sent to manager),
further indicating via color coded icons in the supervisor graphical user interface whether the specified rate are above or below the organization’s established rates (in-policy and out-of-policy search results are all displayed in different colors so that the user (e.g., employer) can easily see which search results fit within their company's travel policy, ¶[0089] and Figs. 11A and 11B)
and permitting the supervisor to approve or decline accommodation requests (manager approves or denies the request, ¶¶[0076], [0087] and Figs. 6 and 10; see also Fig. 16 and ¶[0103] showing requests sent to manager).
However, Altman does not teach but Slowe does teach:
accommodations being indexed according to prices, geographic locations, and accommodation types (accommodations are sorted by price, distance from a particular geographic location and hotel rating, e.g., ¶¶[0018], [0022]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman with the hotel information of Slowe because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, Altman teaches gathering various information about hotels, e.g., ¶[0033]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that users would likely be interested in all available data (e.g., a rating of the hotel, a description of one or more amenities of the hotel, etc.) and accordingly would have modified Altman to include additional hotel data, e.g., as taught by Slowe.
However the combination of Altman and Slowe does not teach but Rowley does teach:
wherein the color coded icons indicate whether the specified rates are above or below the organization's established rates by a set percentage (indicates market rates and percentages below market rates, Fig. 5 and ¶[0084])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the managing of booking and expensing of Altman and Slowe with the display of market rates and savings of Rowely because Altman suggest doing so, see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Altman teaches using preferred suppliers (for example, when there are volume contracts with the supplier) when the user searches for hotels, ¶[0070]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized users and managers would likely be interested in seeing the savings gained when using preferred suppliers and accordingly would have modified Altman and Slowe to show these savings, i.e., as taught by Rowely.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights