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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 were previously pending. Claims 1-3 and 7-11 were amended in the reply filed June 3, 2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection to the Specification and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection of claim 1 made under § 112(a) and it is withdrawn. The amendments do not overcome the rejection of claim 2 made under § 112(a). See below.
Applicant's amendments overcome rejection made under § 101 for the claims encompassing a human organism and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 for the claims being directed to an abstract idea are persuasive (see esp. Remarks, 14), and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections made under § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Although Applicant alleges that it would not have been obvious to modify DeMarcken (Remarks, 18-19), rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness is provided in the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites "return the selected nodes of the itinerary network to the network of travel content supplier devices." The disclosure does not support returning the nodes themselves. Instead, it merely discusses returning a "solution" (¶ 0091). Although the nodes are used in the process of identifying solutions (¶¶ 0061-63, 103-106), no support could be located for returning the nodes themselves to the travel content suppliers. Claims 7-10 as amended further limit this feature, and these limitations are unsupported for the same reasons. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 2 recites "to generate a constrained itinerary network being constrained according to traveler preferences and availability of the selected nodes." The disclosure references an "unconstrained" schedule (¶¶ 0075, 83-84). It further mentions the process to follow if constraints cannot be met (¶¶ 0090-91), and allocating inventory based on constraints (¶ 0097) but these passages do not provide any detail on how generating a constrained itinerary network being constrained according to traveler preferences and availability of the selected nodes is intended to be performed. Claim 3 recites related limitations, and there is no description of returning this unspecified constrained itinerary network to the network of travel content supplier devices.
"When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.... It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)." MPEP 2161.01(I).
The subject matter of the claims (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed system as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what Applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the particular manner in which traveler preferences and availability of the selected nodes are used to generate a constrained itinerary network. The lack of a particular methodology supports a finding that Applicant did not fully possess of these features at the time of filing. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0106497 (U.S. Pat. Pub. Citation 15 of the 18-page IDS filed 01/12/2024) in view of DeMarcken, U.S. Pat. No. 6,275,808 (U.S. Pat. Citation 37 of the 18-page IDS filed 01/12/2024), Boyle, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2003/0208436 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250211), and Champernowne, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0143587 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Ramsey teaches a computer system for fulfilling travel requests, the system comprising:
a network of travel content supplier devices for providing: supplier-defined record types; and travel content records (¶¶ 0114-15, see also ¶¶ 0136-37—requesting particular airlines);
a content database for storing the travel content records (¶ 0136);
a metadata database for storing the supplier-defined record types (¶¶ 0079, 89);
a processor and a memory having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (¶¶ 0042-43) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement a parsing module configured to: receive a travel itinerary request from an exchange (¶¶ 0093, 97); in response to the travel itinerary request, determine associated travel components expressed as metadata records and equivalence classes (¶¶ 0089-91);
an artificial intelligence engine configured to impose a structure of travel logistics on the travel itinerary request (¶¶ 0137-39), the artificial intelligence engine comprising:
a pattern recognition module for determining a pattern of the metadata records and the equivalence classes (¶¶ 0137-39); and
a scheduling module configured to: search the content database to retrieve itinerary objects (¶ 0122); select content for retrieval that meet the travel itinerary request (¶ 0136); and return the subset of the itinerary objects (¶ 0136).
Ramsey does not explicitly teach the records are assembled as itinerary networks, receive the itinerary networks, and use the itinerary networks to select nodes of the itinerary networks for content retrieval that meet the travel itinerary request and return the selected nodes of the itinerary network; which is taught by DeMarcken (col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 50, lines 18-45). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in DeMarcken—namely, to leverage a graph structure to efficiently determine an optimal itinerary to present to the user for purchase. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel planning. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
While DeMarcken teaches that the itinerary data is in the form of nodes of the itinerary network, the references do not explicitly teach the itinerary data are returned to the network of travel content supplier devices; which is taught by Boyle (¶ 0022). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Boyle—namely, so that suppliers can competitively bid on the travel needs of customers. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel planning. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
The references do not explicitly teach the using the itinerary networks for content retrieval is specifically done by recursing over the itinerary networks; which is taught by Champernowne (¶¶ 0062, 74). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a substitution of the recursive process in Champernowne for the iterative process in DeMarcken. Both are disclosed in the art of travel planning as methods of extracting solutions from a graph. Moreover, Champernowne explicitly states that a recursive process is an alternative to an iterative process (¶¶ 0062, 74).
The references do not explicitly teach where no nodes of the itinerary network meet the travel itinerary request, the schedule module is further configured to select alternative nodes that are closest to meeting the travel itinerary request and return the selected alternative nodes; which is taught by Champernowne (¶¶ 0062, 74). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Champernowne—namely to ensure that at least one result is returned by relaxing constraints that do not yield any results. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel planning. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches the scheduling module is further configured to generate a constrained itinerary network being constrained according to traveler preferences and availability of the selected nodes (col. 4, lines 56-59; col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 49, lines 9-22); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 3, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 2 as above. DeMarcken/Boyle further teaches the scheduling module is further configured to return the constrained itinerary network to the network of travel content supplier devices (DeMarcken col. 49, lines 53-61; Boyle ¶ 0022); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 4, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches each of the itinerary networks is associated with at least one of a stage, a state or a context (col. 45, lines 51-62); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches the itinerary networks are expressed as directed acyclic graphs (Abst.); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 6, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. Ramsey further teaches the supplier-defined record types and the travel content records are provided via an application programming interface (¶ 0108).
As per claim 7, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches returning the selected nodes of the itinerary network comprises returning the selected nodes of the itinerary network via the exchange, wherein the exchange employs a listener configured to identify the selected nodes associated with the travel request (col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 49, lines 53-63; col. 50, lines 18-45); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. Boyle further teaches the results are returned to the network supplier devices, (¶ 0022); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches the results are selected nodes of the itinerary network (col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 50, lines 18-45); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. Boyle further teaches the returning the results to the network of travel content supplier devices comprises returning the results via the exchange to a subset of the travel content supplier devices within the network of travel content supplier devices, the subset of the travel content supplier devices identified by the exchange based on the results, wherein the exchange employs a listener configured to identify the results associated with the travel request (¶¶ 0022, 28, 33); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 9, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 1 as above. DeMarcken further teaches the results are selected nodes of the itinerary network (col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 50, lines 18-45); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. Boyle further teaches the returning the results to the network of travel content supplier devices comprises writing an offer expressed as a response (¶¶ 0022, 28); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 10, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 9 as above. DeMarcken further teaches the results are selected nodes of the itinerary network (col. 45, lines 51-62; col. 50, lines 18-45); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. Boyle further teaches the network of travel content supplier devices is configured to, in response to receiving the offer, provide a pricing for the results (¶¶ 0022, 28, 33); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 11, Ramsey in view of DeMarcken, Boyle, and Champernowne teaches claim 10 as above. Boyle further teaches the network of travel content supplier devices is further configured to provide additional content relating to the offer (¶¶ 0032-33); which would have been obvious to incorporate for so that travelers are aware of their new travel plans (as taught by Boyle) and for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Demarcken, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0249683 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to a computing engine for travel itinerary resolutions.
Marcken, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0108068 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to a computing engine for travel itinerary resolutions.
Marcken, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0167886 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to a computing engine for travel itinerary resolutions.
De Marcken, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0140462 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to a computing engine for travel itinerary resolutions.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628