DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the applicant’s response filed on 03/17/2026.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a computing resource which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Independent claims 1 and 11 as a whole is directed towards the abstract idea of Receiving travel itinerary parameters and requests, querying multiple travel actor servers,receiving and parsing heterogeneous response messages, evaluating attributes against constraints, discarding non-compliant responses, normalizing compliant itineraries and displaying the normalized itineraries. (These steps collectively amount to collecting, organizing, filtering, and displaying data for travel itinerary selection—a fundamental business practice and an abstract idea i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity).
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of the display device, application programming interface (API), processor, memory, and servers fail to recite a practical application because they are instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instructions to apply the abstract ideas using a computer (processor, memory, display device), that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the additional elements of the display device, application programming interface (API), processor, memory, and servers fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea because they are instructions to apply the abstract idea using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: wherein the messages include heterogeneous fare class data fields including non-refundable fare, refundable fare with fee and fully refundable fare from a first travel actor server and including non-refundable fare and refundable fare with fee from a second travel actor server, and wherein the refundable fare with fee and fully refundable fare are merged into a single flexible fare parameter. (which further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.) Regarding claims 3 and 13: discard at least one attribute that falls outside the parameters. (which further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.) Regarding claims 4 and 14: 4. The computing resource optimization engine of claim 1 wherein the display device is interactive and can receive a selection of one of the itineraries. (which are additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are instructions to merely apply the abstract ideas using computers.) Regarding claims 5 and 15: receive a selection of one of the parameters within the one of the itineraries. (which further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.) Regarding claims 6 and 16: at least a portion of the parameters can be revealed or hidden on the display device for each of the itineraries. (which further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.)
Regarding claims 7 and 17: wherein fare class data fields are within the portion of the parameters. (which further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.) Regarding claims 8 and 18: wherein the travel actor servers include one or more of a global distribution server and a new distribution capability (NDC) protocol-based server. (which are additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are instructions to merely apply the abstract ideas using computers.) Regarding claims 9 and 19: wherein the query is effected via an application programming interface (API) executing on the processor or travel actor servers. (which are additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are instructions to merely apply the abstract ideas using computers.) Regarding claims 10 and 20: wherein the travel actor servers can include air travel actor servers and rail travel actor servers. (which are additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are instructions to merely apply the abstract ideas using computers.)
Dependent claims further recites abstract idea without any additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgerald (US 2003/0177045 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
Fitzgerald teaches a computing resource optimization engine comprising a processor and a memory for storing instructions executable on the processor; the processor configured to: (A computing resource optimization method comprising):” (See at least paragraph [0026])
receive a data format of administrator travel itinerary parameters defining a predefined parameter schema including permissible parameter values and parameter constraints; receive an electronic request for a proposed travel itinerary; (By disclosing, With reference to FIG. 5, an exemplary process 500 using trip request module 400 is illustrated for processing a trip request that is received from a traveler. The trip request may be received from the traveler (step 510) in various manners. In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the traveler, or a representative for the traveler (e.g., assistant, secretary, co-worker, employee, travel coordinator, relative, friend, and the like) may access a formatted trip request form that is located on a web site associated with travel industry system 100. With momentary reference to FIG. 6, an exemplary formatted trip request form 600 is illustrated that contains various fields for entering travel information for the trip request. See at least paragraph [0050]-[0051])
query a plurality of travel actor servers for the travel itinerary based on the request; receive a plurality of heterogeneous travel itinerary response messages from the travel actor servers; (By disclosing, Travel vendors 150 may also be connected to network 110 at each of the hub sites 300, thus providing redundant connectivity points for the travel vendors. By centralizing the connection to travel vendors 150, the system of the present invention allows a company to negotiate directly with air, car rental, hotel vendors, and the like, based on direct connections and fulfillment options, wherein connection is not limited only through GDS hosts. Direct connections to various vendors (e.g., air, car rental, hotel, rail, limousines, cruise lines, conference centers, ferries) make it possible for travelers to have a broader range of travel service choices. The present invention also allows alternative supply and distribution channels for products and services which may be provided by plugging a vendor directly into network 110. Alternatively, travel vendors 150 may be accessed via the Internet as described below. See at least paragraph [0042-[0043])
the messages including heterogeneous offer attributes data fields from different travel actor servers; parse each response message into a plurality of attributes; (By disclosing, The various options for the different itineraries may be displayed using a weighted hierarchy that is based on various criteria such as, for example, the traveler's company policy, contracts, preferences and weightings. Information from the company policy may be entered manually and may include traditional policies such as first class restrictions, flight windows and the like. In addition, the company policy may include information on certain vedors/supplies that are not allowed to be used. Negotiations contracts with various air, hotel, rental car, and limousine vendors may be entered automatically via the customer data module 430 as described below. These automatic feeds may take place nightly or at any other scheduled interval. Customer (i.e., the traveler or the traveler's company) preferences may be loaded manually. Preferences may include information on vendors/suppliers that are preferred or non-preferred. However, if a non-preferred vendor is selected by the traveler, this should not result in an out of policy violation. Weightings is information that allows the traveler or traveler's company to specify how various vendors/suppliers should be sorted/displayed on the traveler counselor's computer terminal. The weighting applied to various criteria directly influences how the various vendors/suppliers are ordered on the traveler counselor's terminal. For example, if cost is an important criteria to a traveler/company, then that traveler would weight price higher than other criteria. Examples of criteria that may have weightings include price, travel distance, travel time, travel duration, enterprise service provider (ESP) vendor, and preferred vendor. See at least paragraph [0057]-[0069])
evaluate the parsed attributes of each response message against the predefined parameter schema to determine compliance with the parameter constraints; discard response messages having parsed attributes that fail to satisfy the parameter constraints prior to generating any corresponding travel itinerary; determine a normalized set of travel itineraries exclusively from response messages having parsed attributes that satisfy the parameter constraints, wherein the normalized set is bounded by the predefined parameter schema; (By disclosing, buttons 820, 830, 840, and 850 may be used to perform a search for the air itinerary, a car itinerary (step 740), a limousine itinerary (step 750), and a hotel itinerary (step 760) for the trip where the results of the search are displayed in a weighted hierarchy (FIG. 9). The various options for the different itineraries may be displayed using a weighted hierarchy that is based on various criteria such as, for example, the traveler's company policy, contracts, preferences and weightings. Information from the company policy may be entered manually and may include traditional policies such as first class restrictions, flight windows and the like. In addition, the company policy may include information on certain vedors/supplies that are not allowed to be used. Negotiations contracts with various air, hotel, rental car, and limousine vendors may be entered automatically via the customer data module 430 as described below. These automatic feeds may take place nightly or at any other scheduled interval. Customer (i.e., the traveler or the traveler's company) preferences may be loaded manually. Preferences may include information on vendors/suppliers that are preferred or non-preferred. However, if a non-preferred vendor is selected by the traveler, this should not result in an out of policy violation. Weightings is information that allows the traveler or traveler's company to specify how various vendors/suppliers should be sorted/displayed on the traveler counselor's computer terminal. The weighting applied to various criteria directly influences how the various vendors/suppliers are ordered on the traveler counselor's terminal. For example, if cost is an important criteria to a traveler/company, then that traveler would weight price higher than other criteria. Examples of criteria that may have weightings include price, travel distance, travel time, travel duration, enterprise service provider (ESP) vendor, and preferred vendor. With reference to FIG. 9, an exemplary display 900 using a weighted hierarchy for an air itinerary is illustrated. In addition, other policies such as the traveler's preference, cost, negotiated vendor rates, and the like, may also be used to determine the display hierarchy for the various itineraries. It will be appreciated that this will result in an optimized travel itinerary for the trip request and will allow the travel counselor to offer the optimized travel itinerary as a first choice to the traveler. In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the traveler counselor may perform one click or selection of button 870 to accept the proposed optimized travel itinerary. The proposed itinerary will then be booked with the selected vendors for air, car, hotel and/or limousine services. The travel counselor may use the trip planning module to repeat the process for a plurality of trips. See at least paragraph [0057]-[0069])
control a display device to generate the normalized set of travel itineraries according to the parameters.(By disclosing, With reference to FIG. 9, an exemplary display 900 using a weighted hierarchy for an air itinerary is illustrated. In addition, other policies such as the traveler's preference, cost, negotiated vendor rates, and the like, may also be used to determine the display hierarchy for the various itineraries. It will be appreciated that this will result in an optimized travel itinerary for the trip request and will allow the travel counselor to offer the optimized travel itinerary as a first choice to the traveler. In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the traveler counselor may perform one click or selection of button 870 to accept the proposed optimized travel itinerary. The proposed itinerary will then be booked with the selected vendors for air, car, hotel and/or limousine services. The travel counselor may use the trip planning module to repeat the process for a plurality of trips. See at least paragraph [0057]-[0069])
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to discard at least one attribute that falls outside the parameters. (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057])
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the display device is interactive and can receive a selection of one of the itineraries. (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057])
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the display device can receive a selection of one of the parameters within the one of the itineraries. (See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057])
Regarding claims 6 and 16:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein at least a portion of the parameters can be revealed or hidden on the display device for each of the itineraries. (By disclosing, with reference to FIGS. 8A and 8B, an exemplary user interface 800 for the trip planning module is illustrated. In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the travel counselor may use one click of button 860 to request a search for air (or other mode of travel such as train, bus, boat, and/or the like), car, limousine, and hotel itineraries using all of the traveler's preferences and policies, and with the negotiated rates and fares applied. Buttons 820, 830, 840, and 850 may be used to perform a search for the air itinerary, a car itinerary (step 740), a limousine itinerary (step 750), and a hotel itinerary (step 760) for the trip where the results of the search are displayed in a weighted hierarchy (FIG. 9). In addition, the low fare search module 470 may be used to search for the lowest fares as will be described in detail below.See at least paragraph [0056]-[0057])
Regarding claims 7 and 17:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein fare class data fields are within the portion of the parameters. (See at least paragraph [0034]-[0057])
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the travel actor servers include one or more of a global distribution server and a new distribution capability (NDC) protocol-based server. (See at least paragraph [0042]-[0043])
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the query is effected via an application programming interface (API) executing on the processor or travel actor servers. (See at least paragraph [0043])
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the travel actor servers can include air travel actor servers and rail travel actor servers. (See at least paragraph [0033]-[0042])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US 2003/0177045 A1) in view of Dufresne et al. (US 2010/0299318 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Fitzgerald teaches limitations shown above. Fitzgerald does teaches about low fare search module that leads to message about fare class. However does not specifically teaches wherein the messages include heterogeneous fare class data fields including non-refundable fare, refundable fare with fee and fully refundable fare from a first travel actor server and including non-refundable fare and refundable fare with fee from a second travel actor server, and wherein the refundable fare with fee and fully refundable fare are merged into a single flexible fare parameter. However Dufresne in same field of endeavor teaches various types of fare (refundable, economical (which can be considered as non-refundable fare, changeable) from various travel actors server. (See at least paragraphs [0022]-[0025] as well as fig. 7, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of effective filing date of this application to combine teaching of Fitzgerald with teaching of Dufresen to have various types of fare (refundable, economical (which can be considered as non-refundable fare, changeable) from various travel actors server for customization of travel based on user’s preference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of effective filing date of this application to have refundable fare with fee and the refundable fare with fee and fully refundable fare are merged into a single flexible fare parameter so to customize travel based on user preference. It will be mere design choice to expand interface with various fare related parameter based on industry demand.
Response to Arguments
As to the remark, Applicant asserted that
As in McRO, the claims do not merely recite a desired result (e.g., "better search results"). Instead, they define a specific mechanism-evaluation against a predefined schema and exclusion of non-compliant responses-that necessarily produces a bounded output set. The claimed rules replace discretionary human evaluation of heterogeneous travel options with automatic enforcement of defined constraints. Claimed limitations meaningfully limits how the processor operates on heterogeneous machine-generated data and defines how outputs are generated. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation rather than an abstract idea. meaningfully limits how the processor operates on heterogeneous machine-generated data and defines how outputs are generated. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation rather than an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a computing resource optimization engine and computing resource optimization method which can normalize heterogenous travel itinerary data from different travel actor engines and generate a normalized travel itinerary. Before generating the normalized travel itinerary, the processor of claim 1 is configured to receive a plurality of heterogeneous travel itinerary response messages from the travel actor servers, evaluate the parsed attributes of each response message against a predefined parameter schema, after which it discards response messages that have parsed attributes that fail to satisfy the parameter constraints. Fitzgerald fails to teach these features as described in amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s remark for the following reasons:
With respect to (a) Examiner would like to point out to applicant that steps collectively amount to collecting, organizing, filtering, and displaying data for travel itinerary selection—a fundamental business practice and an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alstom). The operations (parsing, evaluating, discarding, normalizing, displaying) are routine and conventional data processing activities. The claim does not specify a non-conventional arrangement or technical improvement that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Applicant compare the currents claims with claims in McRO. In McRO, the Court reviewed the District Court’s determination that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Instead, the Court found “that specific requirements of the claims including rules with specific characteristics that set out meaningful requirements for the first set of rules: they define a morph weight set stream as a function of phenome sequence and times associated with said phenome sequence; and further require applying the first set of rules to each sub-sequence of times phenomes”. The Court concluded that, as an ordered combination, “the claimed improvement is allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators”; - that is that the claims “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation and do not merely use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity”. The Court concluded that there was “no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same process required by the claims” and that there was “no suggestion that animators were previously employing the type of rules required by claim 1”; “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technological process by allowing the automation of further tasks”. In contrast, the pending claims recite a predefined parameter schema with permissible values and constraints. The claims merely suggest the use of process constrains the possible outputs, preventing generation of itineraries outside the schema. These “rules” were widely known. The claims are not directed to an asserted improvement to an existing technological process. Rather the focus of the claims is on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. The process relied on by the Applicant does not; however, describe an improvement to the basic functioning of a computer. In fact, the specification is devoid of any disclosure, or even a suggestion, that the claimed invention improves any basic computer function.
The claims are directed to collecting, parsing, evaluating, and filtering travel data according to predefined rules, which are fundamental data processing and organization activities long held to be abstract ideas (see Alice, Electric Power Group). The use of a schema and constraints for filtering is a form of rule-based data processing, which, absent a technical improvement, is still abstract. The claims do not recite a novel algorithm, new data structure, or an improvement to computer functioning. The rule-based filtering and normalization are performed using conventional computing technology and do not solve a technical problem in a technical way. The ordered combination of receiving, parsing, evaluating, discarding, and normalizing is a routine sequence for data filtering and output. The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to (b) Examiner would like to point out to applicant that, The Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding claims 1 and 11. The Applicant contends that Fitzgerald does not teach discarding response messages having parsed attributes that fail to satisfy parameter constraints prior to generating a normalized travel itinerary, as required by the amended claims. Upon review paragraphs [0057]-[0069], the reference describes generating and displaying various itinerary options in a weighted hierarchy based on company policy, preferences, contracts, and weightings. While Fitzgerald teaches that company policies—such as restrictions on travel class, flight windows, or vendor eligibility—can be entered into the system and used to influence which itinerary options are generated and presented to the user. When a policy such as “first class only” is set, the system would only display itineraries that comply with this constraint, thereby implicitly discarding non-compliant options before presenting the normalized set of itineraries. This is consistent with the mechanism described in the present claims, where non-compliant responses are excluded prior to itinerary generation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights