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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/26/2024 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to Provisional Application 63/080912, filed on September 21, 2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Final Office action mailed on 02/27/2024. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 08/26/2024, amended Claims 1-2, 11, and 16-17 and added New Claim 21. The 3 month request for suspension, filed 08/30/2024, has expired. Herein this Non-Final Office Action, Claims 1-21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2024, with respect to Claim Objections for Claim 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2024, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claim 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/26/2024, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-19, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments on Section “V” Page 11 states “The Examiner has acknowledged that the claims of the present invention recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture) and a method (i.e. a process), and therefore Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See the Office Action, Page 9. Nonetheless, the Examiner has rejected Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory matter (i.e., a judicial exception), specifically in that it is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., organizing human activity) without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (e.g., not integrated into a practical application) and/or adding significantly more to the abstract idea. See the Office Action, Pages 9-20. As Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of being computer-implemented methods, steps of which are executed on a graphical user interface, each of the independent claims should be evaluated under the examination process for computer-implemented inventions.” Examiner does not agree. As discussed in greater detail below, a computer-implemented method including steps executed on a graphical user interface is not necessarily patent eligible subject matter under MPEP 2106.
Applicant arguments on Section “V.A” Pages 11-13 states “The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012). "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." See Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593,658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). If such a transformation exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) § 2106.05(c). The computer-implemented method of independent Claims I and 11 now recite transforming data representing physical phenomena into a different state or thing to achieve a practical application. The data of the claims, as recited, is data representing the physical phenomena of a registration status of the corporate traveler in the travel management system, a corporate traveler profile, a corporate travel policy, a determination status of a conformity of a travel program of the travel service provider to the corporate travel policy, a travel inventory (i.e., search results) that conforms to the corporate travel policy, a corporate pricing for the travel inventory, a corporate form of payment method, a travel reservation, a travel advisory, and a report. That is, information relating to the various travel options and requirements and conformance thereof to a corporation's travel policies for a corporate traveler. Support for this amendment is found in the Specification in paragraphs [0035], [0041], [0063], [0074], [0078], Attachment III (pages 170-178) and Figure 5. The computer-implemented method as recited by the independent Claims 1 and 11 transforms the travel data of those various disparate options and requirements into a different state of thing, that is, a single comprehensive conforming travel booking view. A single conforming travel booking view, collating disparate travel information from various options and requirements is a significant practical application that empowers airlines and other travel providers to deliver a personalized and controlled user experience directly to the traveler in real time. Accordingly, as Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of transforming data representing physical phenomena (i.e., travel data from disparate sources) into a different state or thing (i.e., a single comprehensive travel booking view) to achieve a practical application (i.e., the ability to book conforming travel in real time), the present invention claims do recite a statutory process as required by the law, are not an abstract idea and therefore overcome the rejection.” (Emphasis added). Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04(a) states “The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: . . . 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); . . .”
MPEP 2106.05(c) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. . . . An "article" includes a physical object or substance. . . . Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), . . .”
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.”
Examiner responds that “a registration status of the corporate traveler in the travel management system, a corporate traveler profile, a corporate travel policy, a determination status of a conformity of a travel program of the travel service provider to the corporate travel policy, a travel inventory (i.e., search results) that conforms to the corporate travel policy, a corporate pricing for the travel inventory, a corporate form of payment method, a travel reservation, a travel advisory, and a report” are not physical phenomon, but are apart of the abstract idea. Each of these are at least the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions of least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”) under MPEP 2106.04(a).
Although a graphical user interface does transform to display information, this transformation is merely using the computer in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of a “singular view” to display certain information on the graphic user interface could be an improvement to the graphic user interface, i.e. not merely using the computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea. However, in order for Examiner to conclude an improvement to a user interface, a technical explanation must be present in the specification sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvement to technology under MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant’s original disclosure does not discuss a specific “singular view” or advantages thereof. Therefore, the transformation of a graphic user interface to display certain information is not patent eligible under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant arguments on Section “V.B” Pages 13-14 states “The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are '' directed to'' a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,209 USPQ I (1981 ); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See also, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). For instance, in computer-related technologies, the Federal Circuit has held that the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further for instance, the Federal Circuit has held patentable an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See also MPEP § 2106.05(a). Independent Claims 1 and 11, as amended, claim an improved graphical user interface allowing in a singular view display - to the corporate traveler - the travel inventory (i.e., travel search results) that only conform to the corporate travel policy directly on the travel service provider's website. Indeed, the singular view is formatted to display data relating to a registration status of the corporate traveler in the travel management system, a corporate traveler profile, a corporate travel policy, a determination status of a conformity of a travel program of a travel service provider to the corporate travel policy, a travel inventory that conforms to the corporate travel policy, a corporate pricing for the travel inventory, a corporate form of payment method, a travel reservation, a travel advisory, and a report. Support for this amendment is found in the Specification in paragraphs [0035], [0041], [0063], [0074], [0078], Attachment III (pages 170-178) and Figure 5. Therein is taught that results from a travel search (inventory) will display directly in the search panel in a singular view via the graphic user interface pursuant to the API module (i.e., protocols) execution. Thereupon in the GUI singular view display, the corporate traveler can select and book conforming travel inventory on the travel service provider's website in real time. Accordingly, as Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of an improved display format – an improved graphical user interface allowing in a singular view display - which particular formatted data is then selectable by the corporate traveler to book conforming travel inventory on the travel service provider's website in real time, the present invention claims improve computer capabilities and/or functionality and therefore overcome the rejection.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.”
Examiner responds that specification does not include the requisite technical explanation under MPEP 2106.05(a). Specifically, Specification paragraphs [0035], [0041], [0063], [0074], [0078], Attachment III (pages 170-178) and Figure 5 do not discuss the specific views on the provider website used to directly book the travel, and what information is displayed in that singular view. Therefore, because the original disclosure does not provide a technical explanation of the asserted improvement, the claims themselves cannot be held as reciting a patent eligible technological improvement.
Applicant arguments on Section “V.C” Pages 15-16 states “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See also En.fish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed). The computer-implemented method of Claims 1 and 11, as amended and as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The current invention allows for significant amount of corporate traveler data, taken from disparate and differing requirements to determine whether authorization for a travel booking should be granted at the time of the booking The Applicant has amended the claims such that the such authorization for the direct booking of the travel inventory depends on the conformity of the travel inventory to the corporate travel policy based upon a corporate policy rule set by a corporate policy administrator pursuant to a travel criteria and an exception, the travel criteria being one of a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option, and the exception being an airline applicability choice, a flight duration condition, a flight route condition, a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option. Support for this amendment is found in the Specification in paragraphs [0005], [0058-0059], [0063], [0073-0074], [0078], Attachment I (pages 33-44), and Attachment II (pages 80-82).” (Emphasis added). Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04(a) states “The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: . . . 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); . . .”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “[I]t is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court 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.”
Examiner responds that “authorization for the direct booking of the travel inventory depends on the conformity of the travel inventory to the corporate travel policy based upon a corporate policy rule set by a corporate policy administrator pursuant to a travel criteria and an exception, the travel criteria being one of a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option, and the exception being an airline applicability choice, a flight duration condition, a flight route condition, a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option” is apart of the abstract idea. Each of these are at least the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions of least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”) under MPEP 2106.04(a). An improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a) must be provided by the additional elements or the additional elements in combination with the abstract idea, and cannot be provided by an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the amended claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Examiner notes that the claims make no reference to the capacity (e.g. significant amount”) of the system beyond its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant arguments on Section “V.C” Pages 16-17 states “Courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. The functions of restructuring and parsing the travel data taken from a various disparate travel requirements, processing such travel requirements to identify conforming travel inventory, and then creating a single comprehensive travel booking view by which a conforming travel booking may be made is not merely generic functionality. See Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (eligible patent re: processing data about vaccination schedules & then vaccinating). See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(l) [and U.S. Pat. Reg. No. 11,610,6551]. Accordingly, as Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of transforming data representing physical phenomena (i.e., travel data from disparate sources) into a different state or thing (i.e., a single comprehensive travel booking view) to achieve a practical application (i.e., the ability to provide a conforming travel booking), the combination of the elements of the present invention claims are not generic and, rather, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and therefore overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the invention now claimed by amendment has added meaningful integration of a practical application and/or amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea and it is respectfully submitted that this rejection has been overcome and thus should be withdrawn.” (Emphasis added). Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04(a) states “The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: . . . 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); . . .”
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. 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., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); . . . v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); . . .” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(e) states “Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC provides another example of claims that recited meaningful limitations. 659 F.3d 1057, 100 USPQ2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (decision on remand from the Supreme Court, which had vacated the lower court’s prior holding of ineligibility in view of Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010)). In Classen, the claims recited methods that gathered and analyzed the effects of particular immunization schedules on the later development of chronic immune-mediated disorders in mammals in order to identify a lower risk immunization schedule, and then immunized mammalian subjects in accordance with the identified lower risk schedule (thereby lowering the risk that the immunized subject would later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases). 659 F.3d at 1060-61; 100 USPQ2d at 1495-96. Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. In contrast, in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court determined that the additional steps to "test prices and collect data based on the customer reactions" did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, because the steps were well-understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities. 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With respect to treatment or prophylaxis limitations, such as the immunization step in Classen, examiners should note that the other meaningful limitations consideration overlaps with the particular treatment or prophylaxis consideration that is evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)).” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. . . However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court 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.” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that providing a customer offers that a uniquely tailored to that user (e.g. by applying a corporate policy) is apart of the abstract idea of at least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations” (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions) under MPEP 2106.04(a). Because providing an offer to a customer is apart of the abstract idea, and providing an offer narrowly tailored for that specific customer is also apart of the abstract idea, the advantages of providing travel offers that conform with a corporate travel policy would be considered an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e. providing a “better” offer to a customer). Under MPEP 2106.05(a), an improvement to the abstract idea itself does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Examiner responds that Applicant’s comparison with Classen Immunotherapies is inapplicable. As shown by MPEP 2106.05(e), Classen Immunotherapies was patent eligible based on an immunization step, which requires a particular “treatment or prophylaxis” analysis under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). Applicant’s claims are wholly unrelated to healthcare or the application of immunization. Instead, Applicant’s claims are most analogous to Intellectual Ventures I in MPEP 2106.06(f), where the Court held that “requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer” was merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Applicant’s claims of providing a travel offer that conforms to a corporate travel policy is analogous to “requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer,” and distinguishable from providing a “treatment or prophylaxis.” Therefore, the rejection remains.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/06/2023, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments on Section “VI” Page 17 states “The Examiner has rejected Claims 1-11, 14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of the Wilkinson et al. reference, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0278597 (hereinafter "Wilkinson" or "the Wilkinson reference") in view of the Ruiz et al. reference U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0134372 (hereinafter "Ruiz" or "the Ruiz reference"). See the Office Action, Pages 21-40. However, in order for a claim to be rejected for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the prior art must teach or suggest each element of the claims and suggest combining the elements in a manner contemplated by the claim. See Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F .2d 931,934 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 296 (1990). Indeed, Wilkinson does not teach or suggest each element of the claims and does not suggest combining the elements in a manner contemplated by the claims of the present invention application with respect to when authorization, that is, when the resolution of the conformance of the travel inventory (i.e. search results) to the travel policy occurs.” Examiner does not agree. xxx
Applicant arguments on Section “VI.A” Page 18 states “Wilkenson discloses that authorization (i.e., resolution) of whether a corporate traveler's booked flight is in conformance with a corporate travel policy occurs during a reconciliation process after the time of booking whereas on the other hand the present invention, as recited in Claims 1 and 11 as amended, teaches that such authorization occurs at the time of booking.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the authorization process occurs at the time of booking. Wilkenson Fig. 2 and ¶48 shows that responding “yes” to “Does the traveler like the options presented? [62]” is followed by “Does travel policy allow automatic approval? [66]” and “Trip approved [68].” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “time of booking” includes being presented with options and selecting an option. Therefore, Wilkenson teaches this limitation.
Applicant arguments on Section “VI.A.1” Page 18 states “Wilkinson discloses that corporate travel "[g]ovemance is maintained through "backend" reconciliation" and that such authorization (i.e., resolution) of the conformance of booked travel inventory to the corporate travel policy occurs "automatically or manually by the administrator using the reconciliation module." See Wilkinson, Paragraphs [0017] and [0034]. Indeed, such operational process is in keeping with the disclosure that Wilkinson provides "an online shopping (rather than booking) website. The shopping website allows the user to search, review results, and (if required by policy) request approval for a trip." Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, booked travel inventory that does not conform to the corporate travel policy is flagged with "reason codes" to "facilitate manual review and expensing of these transactions by the administrator." See Wilkinson, Paragraph [0035].” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the “backend” nature of the reconciliation process does not mean that the trip is approved outside of the booking process. The positively recited process of Fig. 2 and ¶48, as discussed above, indicates that the authorization is apart of the booking process.
Applicant arguments on Section “VI.A.2” Pages 18-19 states “The present invention application recites in Claims 1 and 11, as amended, that authorization for "the corporate traveler to directly book the travel inventory" with the travel service provider occurs "at the time of the direct booking". Indeed, the authorization is dependent upon conformity of the travel inventory (i.e. search results) to the corporate travel policy on the basis of travel criteria and an exception previously set by a corporate administrator. See the Specification, paragraphs [0005], [0058-0059], [0063], [0073-0074], [0078], Attachment I (pages 33-44), and Attachment II (pages 80-82). In this manner then, there is no need for reconciliation by the administrator after the booking has occurred as such authorization occurs at the time of booking. Accordingly, the authorization (i.e., the resolution of the conformance of the travel inventory (i.e. search results) to the travel policy) of the travel booking occurs at different times as between what is disclosed by the Wilkenson reference and as what is recited in Claims 1 and 11, as amended, of the present invention application. As the additionally cited the Ruiz reference does not disclose the added elements ( either alone or in combination), and thus fails to cure the deficiencies of the Wilkinson reference, either alone or in combination.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Wilkenson discloses both travel inventory that is automatically approved and other travel inventory that the travel policy dictates the need of additional approval (Fig. 2 and ¶48). Applicant’s argument does not consider embodiments that include automatic approval. Further, the manual approval could still occur during the time of booking, as is indicated by the process outlined in Fig. 1-3. Therefore, Wilkenson teaches the recited limitation as discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below.
Applicant arguments on Section “VI.B” Pages 19-20 states “Wilkinson's disclosure specifically teaches away from the present invention's novelty in that it discloses that "technology cannot effectively prohibit travelers determined to disregard travel policies. Rather, the system makes the rules clear and allows administrators to monitor traveler behavior through reports, emails, alerts and other means." (emphasis added). See Wilkinson, paragraph [0019]. The combination of the prior art references must be evaluated as a whole for what they fairly teach and neither the references' general nor specific teachings may be ignored. See Application of Lundsford, 357 F. 2d 385, 389-90 (CCPA 1966). Thus, any reference cited must be considered for all that it teaches, not just what purportedly points toward the invention but also that which teaches away from the invention. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, 776 F.2d 281,296 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Here it is clear that Wilkinson discloses that as a "online shopping (rather than booking) website" its' invention requires that after-the-act of booking that approval for a trip be garnered. See Wilkinson, Paragraph [0017]. Indeed, Wilkinson even specifically discloses that "technology cannot effectively prohibit travelers determined to disregard travel policies." See Wilkinson, paragraph [0019]. And further that the system only makes the rules clear and that "[g]ovemance is maintained through "back-end" reconciliation." See Wilkinson, Paragraph [0017]. Accordingly, Wilkison teaches away from authorizing (i.e., resolving the booked travel inventory with the corporate travel policy) at the time of the travel booking as compared to what is recited in Claims 1 and 11, as amended, of the present invention application. Additionally the Ruiz reference does not disclose the added elements (either alone or in combination), and thus fails to cure the deficiencies of the Wilkinson reference, either alone or in combination, in this regard.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Applicant has cited to Paragraphs 17 and 19, which are the summary of the invention, and has not addressed the citations used by Examiner for the rejection. Although the description summary may appear to teach away from the claims, when looking at the actual functioning of the system of Wilkenson, it is clear that Wilkenson does not teach away from the claims. Specifically, Wilkenson ¶30 discusses communicating and transmitting profile information to the provider website and ¶47 states “In some cases, the supplier is integrated through API or an embedded browser, but typically the user interface displays in-policy options with links to third party web sites where the in-policy options may be purchased.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, although not the “typical” embodiment, Wilkenson does teach integrating the features with the supplier’s website. Based on the positively recited integration and communication with the supplier, Wilkenson does not teach away from the claimed features.
Applicant arguments on Section “VII” Pages 19-20 states “Additionally, the Examiner has rejected Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Wilkinson and Ruiz in view of the Carlucci reference U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0012521 (hereinafter "Carlucci" or "the Carlucci reference"). See the Office Action, Page 40. Also additionally, the Examiner has rejected Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Wilkinson, Ruiz and Carlucci in view of a publication, titled Rule 740. See the Office Action, Pages 41-43. Also additionally, the Examiner has rejected Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Wilkinson and Ruiz in view of the Udelhoven reference U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0077871 (hereinafter "Udelhoven" or "the Udelhoven reference"). See the Office Action, Pages 43-46. As the additionally cited the Carlucci, Rule 740, and Udelhoven references do not disclose any of the above recited elements (either alone or in combination), and thus they fail to cure the deficiencies of the Wilkinson and Ruiz references, either alone or in combination. Accordingly, based on the above amendments and remarks it is respectfully submitted that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection with regard to Independent Claims 1 and 11 has been overcome. As claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend from and further limit independent claims 1 and 11, as the case may be, it is respectfully submitted that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections with regard to dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been overcome as well.” Examiner does not agree. As Claims 1 and 11 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, there are not further deficiencies to be cured by the additionally cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “The computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, further comprising the steps of: notifying a corporate travel manager of the direct book travel arrangements made by the corporate traveler; and, allowing the corporate travel manager to view and manage the direct book travel arrangements made by the corporate traveler.” (Emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the direct book travel arrangements” as the amended Claim 1 recites “a travel inventory.” Further examination of Claim 4 herein will be based on interpreting the final paragraph of Claim 4 in accordance with the amendments of Claim 1, that replace “travel arrangements” with “travel inventory.”
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding first grounds for rejecting Claim 1, Claim 1 states “wherein the display of the singular view via the graphic user interface occurs at a time of the travel inventory booking directly on a website of the at least one travel service providers and further wherein the singular view is formatted to display data relating to at least one of a registration status of the corporate traveler in the travel management system, a corporate traveler profile, the corporate travel policy, a determination status of a conformity of the at least one travel program of the at least one travel service provider to the corporate travel policy, the travel inventory that conforms to the corporate travel policy, a corporate pricing for the travel inventory, a corporate form of payment method, a travel reservation, a travel advisory, and a report” (emphasis added) in the second and third to last paragraphs. The Specification, Apendendix I-III, original claims, and drawings do not provide support for this limitation. Although the Specification discusses booking on the provider website (¶46 shows that the airlines “deliver the corporate booking experience on their websites/mobile applications to the traveler.” ¶41 shows “In one embodiment, the modules are executed by the processor, configured to perform different operations includes, but not limited to, enabling the travelers 113 or business travelers to directly book, track, and analyze the business travel or corporate travel with suppliers, thereby providing experience tailored to a high-end segment for the travelers, allowing the travel managers to properly capture, track the corporate travel, and control the budget of their travelers, enabling airlines in order to allow travelers 113 for directly booking the business or corporate travel on the airline's website/mobile app, and providing onboarding process, travel inventory, travel policies, viewing of reservations, travel advisories, reporting, and overall process of managing corporate travel.” ¶78 shows “In one embodiment, the method used for travelers to link their personal loyalty or user accounts for each travel provider for each company at another stage is disclosed. At one step, the traveler could directly check the airlines website (for example, airline.com). At another step, the traveler could sign in into the system 100 with the linked loyalty account and check for booking personal or business trip. At another step, the traveler could directly book a business trip by checking the available airlines. When the traveler links their loyalty account to their business traveler UC account, they can go directly to the airline's website to book for a business trip. They will sign in and check the option to book for a business trip. They will get corporate pricing on trips, view their travel policy and able to pay for the trip with a payment method provided by the corporate admin. In one embodiment, the nuTravel176 could enable the traveler to create a booking on the airline's website. Traveler can check corporate rates, travel policy, and corporate forms of payment provided by their travel manager through UC account. At another step, Full itinerary data could be sent to the traveler by the airline or travel provider. Further, at another step, the data could send to the travel provider that can include company and traveler information (loyalty number, company name, travel policy, payment cards) and also transmit data that is received to third party data providers that the travel manager has activated on the system 100 (universal connect).”), the original disclosure does not discuss the specific views (i.e. a singular view) displayed on the provider website. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for introducing new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding second grounds for rejecting Claim 1, Claim 1 states “wherein authorization at the time of the direct booking of the travel inventory depends on the conformity of the travel inventory to the corporate travel policy based upon a corporate policy rule set by a corporate policy administrator pursuant to at least one of a travel criteria and an exception, the travel criteria being at least one of a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option, and the exception being an airline applicability choice and at least one of a flight duration condition, a flight route condition, a highest allowed cabin class option, a maximum allowed budget option, an allowed seat upgrade option, an allowed basic economy seat option, and an allowed refundable fare option” in the last paragraph. The Specification, Apendendix I-III, original claims, and drawings do not provide support for this limitation. The original disclosure makes no mention as to the timining of when the travel inventory is “authoriz[ed]” (Original Claim 1 states “authorizing the corporate traveler to directly book travel arrangements with the at least one travel service provider.” Fig. 6 and Specification ¶¶63-65 shows “[0063] When a traveler goes to the provider's website i.e., traveler booking trough provider 166 to make a business booking (as opposed to a leisure booking), the provider will use the web services API gateway 164 to request the system 100 (Universal Connect) for the corporate travel profile 168 for the traveler. In one embodiment, nuTravel176 could respond by returning the company information, the provider information that is collected when the company activated that provider, the traveler information, and the provider information for that traveler. This will allow the provider to customize the user experience for the business traveler. After, the provider may ask for the policy information for that traveler if there is a policy 170 assigned to the traveler and nuTravel 176 will return it so the provider could show inventory as in or out of policy. [0064] If the traveler decides to book then the provider will ask for forms of payment 172 associated with the traveler and the nuTravel 176 will return the credit card information, which is assigned by the corporate administrator for the traveler. [0065] If the traveler makes a booking then the provider will send the booking back to the nuTravel 176so it can be stored in the system 100 (Universal Connect) and the travel managers for the company can view and manage the bookings made by their travelers 113.” The specification does not show which of the operations of Fig. 6 and ¶¶63-65 are the “authorization.”). Additionally, only displaying travel inventory that conforms to the travel policy (Fig. 6 indicates that the corporate policy is received before the user checks out or purchases the travel) indicates that the authorization occurs before the booking. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for introducing new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Independent Claims 11 recites the limitation similar to the rejected lim