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 1-34 were previously pending and subject to a restriction requirement dated August 4, 2025. In the Response, submitted on October 6, 2025, Group III, claims 8-12, and 14-17 were elected. Therefore, claims 1-34 are pending, claims 1-7, 13, and 18-34 are withdrawn, and claims 8-12 and 14-17 are rejected in the non-final rejection below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III, Claims 8-12 and 14-17 in the reply filed on October 6, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “All of the claims are therefore unified by a same special technical feature, namely, the use of a bulk file parser to process group travel information, a rule merger to integrate organizational and traveller policies, and a booking tool to book travel in compliance with the merged set of rules. Applicant respectfully submits that all of the pending claims should be examined together in the present application. Furthermore, it is believed to be evident that a full search for the subject matter of claims 8-12 and 14-17 will also uncover any art relevant to the remaining claims. Consequently, it would not constitute a serious burden to examine all of the pending claims 1-34 in the present application. We furthermore note that mere separate classification is not a sufficient basis unto itself to justify a requirement for restriction, as the classification schedule exists for the convenience of the Office and the searching public, but is not per se evidence of a searching burden, much less a serious one.”
This is not found persuasive because Inventions I, II, III, IV, V and VI are related as subcombinations (usable together in a single combination). The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants. Applicant alleges “[a]ll of the claims are therefore unified by a same special technical feature, namely, the use of a bulk file parser” (emphasis added), however Claims 8-12 do not even recite a bulk file parser. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted February 19, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final rejection. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, NZ600619, PCT/NZ2013/000100, 14/570,614, 15/392,378 and 17/211,380 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For example, but not limited to:
Claim 8 recites “the bulk file being segregated by predetermined categories of mandatory information, said mandatory information including details of each one of said travellers, a destination of each traveller, additional travel policies of the organization, and the date and time window for arrival at the destination… spawning a number of booking threads…. a process thread for booking, and multiple process threads are presented in parallel”, and
Claim 14 recites “the bulk file being segregated by predetermined categories of mandatory information regarding each one of said travellers sufficient to create a booking, and additional travel policy properties of the organization”
Examiner notes the prior filed applications are silent on features of a segregated bulk file and booking threads. Therefore, claims 8-12, and 14-17 are given the filing date of this application of February 2, 2024.
Claim Objection
Claim 10 is objected to for reciting “meets the and the” in line 3, and should recite “meets the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 8-12 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 14-17 are directed to a system comprising a server (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 8-12 and 14-17 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 8 recites a method comprising: storing first stored information relating to the organization's travel policies; storing second stored information relating to details and travel policies of said individuals; and storing a bulk file relating to a travel event for the organization whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for whom travel is to be arranged for the travel event, the bulk file being segregated by predetermined categories of mandatory information, said mandatory information including details of each one of said travellers, a destination of each traveller, additional travel policies of the organization, and the date and time window for arrival at the destination; the bulk file optionally specifying flight details; generating a group movement corresponding to the travel event of the travellers to the destination merging the organization travel policies, the details and travel policies of the travellers, and said additional travel policies of the organization, to generate and store a merged prioritized set of rules; if a flight is specified in the bulk file, then checking if the flight exists on the day/time specified and if it does, then moving to the booking step; or if the specified flight does not exist on the day/time specified, or if no flight is specified in the bulk file, then retrieving the date/time window at the destination from the merged prioritized set of rules, then conducting a search for flights which correspond to the date/time window, selecting the flight most closely matching the date/time window and moving to the booking step; at the booking step checking that the selected flight and available fare levels accords with the organization's polices: if so, the booking system creates individual bookings in accordance with the merged prioritized set of rules such that a travel request for each individual traveller is presented for booking, if not, the booking system proceeds to the next closest matching flight and repeats the check on the organization's policies and repeats the booking process.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) providing a booking system comprising computer hardware and software stored on a non-transient data storage medium of the computer hardware and executable by a processor of the computer hardware, and uploading to and storing in the booking system, (ii) threads/spawning a number of (booking) threads, process thread (for booking) and multiple process threads-e presented in parallel, and (iii) connecting to a global distribution system (GDS), a GDS booking system, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 as a whole: (i) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) providing a booking system comprising computer hardware and software stored on a non-transient data storage medium of the computer hardware and executable by a processor of the computer hardware, and uploading to and storing in the booking system, (ii) threads/spawning a number of (booking) threads, process thread (for booking) and multiple process threads-e presented in parallel, and (iii) connecting to a global distribution system (GDS), a GDS booking system.
The additional element (i) is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element (ii) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computing threads) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element (iii) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., global distribution systems) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., thread computing or GDS) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-12 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 8, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 9-12 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 14 recites a system performing functions of: storing details of organization travel rules, details of the individuals, and travel policies of the individuals, reading a bulk file, the bulk file relating to a travel event defining a date/time window for arrival of the plurality of individuals at a destination, whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for travel to a destination, the bulk file being segregated by predetermined categories of mandatory information regarding each one of said travellers sufficient to create a booking, and additional travel policy properties of the organization; for merging the stored organization travel rules and the additional travel policy properties of the organization in the bulk file, said merging occurring to generate and store a merged set of prioritized rules; and to locate one or more flights that correspond to the date/time window, then to select a flight most closely matching the date/time window; to check that the flight and available fare levels accords with the organisation's polices; for booking travel for each one of said travellers, and to book travel for each one of the travellers to the destination in accordance with the merged set of rules and is configured on successful completion to output the bookings to the organization and/or to each of the individuals.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) a server, in communication with an information storage system, the server having a non-transitory computer-readable data storage with software stored therein, the software, upon execution by the server, (ii) the server operating as a bulk file parser that reads and operates upon a bulk file uploaded to the server of the booking system, (iii) the server operates as a rule merger, a search tool, a checking tool, and a booking tool, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 as a whole: merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) a server, in communication with an information storage system, the server having a non-transitory computer-readable data storage with software stored therein, the software, upon execution by the server, (ii) the server operating as a bulk file parser that reads and operates upon a bulk file uploaded to the server of the booking system, and (iii) the server operates as a rule merger, a search tool, a checking tool, and a booking tool.
The additional elements of (i) –(iii) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 14, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 16 recites outputting the bookings by performing at least one of: generating a listing all the bookings for the travellers, and generating separate messages to each traveller of the travellers with information of booking details of the traveller – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of generating an email/emails, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than: reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 14 and 16, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is also ineligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 and 14-17 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 8 recites “the day/time specified” in lines 23-24, 25. The term lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what is meant by the forward slash (e.g., “day and time specified” or “day or time specified”). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a day or time specified”.
Claim 8 recites “the date/time window” in line 26, 28 and 29. The term lacks antecedent basis and is unclear what is meant by the forward slash (e.g., “date and time window” or “date or time window”). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “the date and time window”, as antecedent basis is found in line 15’s “date and time window”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the booking step” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a booking step.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the available flights” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “available flights”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the booking system” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a booking system.”
Claim 14 recites “a date/time window” in line 10. It is unclear what is meant by the forward slash (e.g., “date and time window” or “date or time window”). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a date or time window”.
Claims 9-12 and 15-17 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes claim 8 recites “if a flight is specified in the bulk file, then the booking system checks if the flight exists on the day/time specified and if it does, then moving to the booking step” and “or if the specified flight does not exist on the day/time specified, or if no flight is specified in the bulk file, then retrieving the date/time window at the destination from the merged prioritized set of rules, then the booking system conducts a search for flights which correspond to the date/time window, selecting the flight most closely matching the date/time window and moving to the booking step (emphasis added).” Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the above bolded conditional limitations, the “retrieving the date/time window at the destination from the merged prioritized set of rules, then the booking system conducts a search for flights which correspond to the date/time window, selecting the flight most closely matching the date/time window and moving to the booking step” steps do not need to performed if the condition “or if the specified flight does not exist on the day/time specified, or if no flight is specified in the bulk file” does not occur. Similarly then, claim 9’s further limitation of “wherein the search for flights is achieved by spawning a number of search threads to query the availability of different flights or other travel stages from one or more travel providers” does not need to be performed, since the condition was not met in claim 8.
Claim 8 also recites “the booking system checks that the selected flight and available fare levels accords with the organization's polices: if so, the booking system creates individual bookings in accordance with the merged prioritized set of rules by spawning a number of booking threads and connecting to a Global Distribution System (GDS) such that a travel request for each individual traveller is presented to a GDS booking system as a process thread for booking, and multiple process threads are presented in parallel, if not, the booking system proceeds to the next closest matching flight and repeats the check on the organization's policies and repeats the booking process.” (emphasis added) Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the above bolded conditional limitations, “the booking system creates individual bookings in accordance with the merged prioritized set of rules by spawning a number of booking threads and connecting to a Global Distribution System (GDS) such that a travel request for each individual traveller is presented to a GDS booking system as a process thread for booking, and multiple process threads are presented in parallel” step does not need to be performed if the “checks that the selected flight and available fare levels accords with the organization's polices: if so” condition does not occur. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 8, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0153348 to Garback (hereinafter “Garback”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0053122 to Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0309500 to Arunachalam (hereinafter “Arunachalam”).
In regard to claim 8, Garback discloses providing a booking system comprising computer hardware and software stored on a non-transient data storage medium of the computer hardware and executable by a processor of the computer hardware (Paras. 2, 35, 49; Fig. 1) (This invention relates generally to the field of computerized travel planning and booking system…. a machine readable program is provided containing instructions for controlling a device for managing travel within a sponsoring organization)
Garback discloses storing in the booking system, first stored information relating to the organization's travel policies (Paras. 23, 25-26) (…a system for managing travel within a sponsoring organization is provided (i.e., organization)… The database can further include a travel policy file (i.e., storing in the booking system, first stored information) which contains information on preselected airline carriers, preselected room accommodation providers, and preselected ground transportation providers. Normally, these vendors have been selected via negotiation with the sponsoring organization (i.e., relating to the organization's travel policies).)
Garback discloses storing in the booking system, second stored information relating to details and travel policies of said individuals (Paras. 25 and 29) (…the present invention provides a database which contains a number of separate data files…(i.e., storing in the booking system, second stored information) A group member data file is provided for each individual member of the sponsoring organization. The group member file contains group member information…personal data about the traveler and, optionally, preference information known about that group member, such as his/her preferences on airline seating, non-smoking arrangements, frequent flier membership, meal preferences, etc. (i.e., details and travel policies of said individuals).)
Garback discloses uploading to the booking system and storing, in the booking system, a file relating to a travel event for the organization, the file including predetermined categories of mandatory information (Paras. 24-25 and 45) (…the present invention provides a database which contains a number of separate data files. One file, called a venue file, (i.e., uploading to the booking system and storing, in the booking system, a file) contains information about a specific venue for which individual travelers from the same sponsoring organization can make travel arrangements (i.e., relating to a travel event for the organization). The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends on which it ends, the city location of the travel destination, and the address location of the destination within the city (i.e., the file including predetermined categories of mandatory information).)
Garback discloses said mandatory information including details of each one of said travellers, a destination of each traveller, additional travel policies of the organization, and the date and time window for arrival at the destination (Paras. 24-25, 29, 44 and 54) (The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends on which it ends, the city location of the travel destination, and the address location of the destination within the city…(i.e., destination of each traveller, additional travel policies of the organization, and the date window for arrival at the destination). A group member data file is provided for each individual member of the sponsoring organization. The group member file contains group member information (as described above) including, for example, personal data about the traveler and, optionally, preference information known about that group member, such as his/her preferences on airline seating, non-smoking arrangements, frequent flier membership, meal preferences, etc.) (i.e., details of each one of said travellers)… An airline availability request is formatted based upon the time and date of travel requested (i.e., the date and time window for arrival at the destination).)
Garback discloses the file optionally specifying flight details (Para. 46) (…the travel policy file 16 will include one or more preselected airline carriers)
Garback discloses merging the organization travel policies, the details and travel policies of the travellers, and said additional travel policies of the organization, to generate and store a merged prioritized set of rules (Para. 34, 49) (The system of the present invention also includes a central processing unit which is in communication with the database and with a plurality of travel planning websites via the Internet (i.e., store). The central processing unit is responsive to the individual travel request data entered on the terminal, and is programmed to emulate the decision making process of the typical corporate travel arranger. It retrieves information from the temporary individual travel request file, the specific venue file, the travel policy file including the prenegotiated vendors, and the group member file for the individual making the travel requests (i.e., merging the organization travel policies, the details and travel policies of the travellers, and said additional travel policies of the organization, to generate a merged prioritized set of rules) and, by accessing the flight schedules and other information contained in the travel planning websites, selects the optimum itinerary for that individual group member
Garback discloses if a flight is specified in the file, then the booking system checks if the flight exists on the day/time specified and if it does, then moving to a booking step (Paras. 24-25 and 34) (The term “specific venue” refers to a particular travel destination, and can include airline flights… One file, called a venue file, contains information about a specific venue for which individual travelers from the same sponsoring organization can make travel arrangements (i.e., if a flight is specified in the file). The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends (i.e., day specified)…It retrieves information from the temporary individual travel request file, the specific venue file, the travel policy file including the prenegotiated vendors, and the group member file for the individual making the travel requests and, by accessing the flight schedules and other information contained in the travel planning websites, selects the optimum itinerary for that individual group member (i.e., checks if the flight exists on the day specified). The airline, hotel and ground transportation selections are then booked and displayed on the user terminal (i.e., if it does, then moving to a booking step).)
Garback discloses at the booking step the booking system checks that the selected flight and available fare levels accords with the organization's polices; and if not, the booking system proceeds to the next closest matching flight and repeats the check on the organization's policies and repeats the booking process (Paras. 33, 47, and 50-51) (The system 10 then performs a price check by further interrogating the travel planning websites 28 to discover whether there are any lower published fares available for the same venue. If lower fares are discovered, the system 10 may cancel the original bookings and rebook the itinerary by using the lower published fares).
Garback does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Xu teaches whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for whom travel is to be arranged for the travel event (Para. 15) (…identifying the user from the group consisting of a traveller, a… coordinator and an administrator..; displaying targeted information to the user based the identification of the user)
Garback does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Xu teaches generating, via the booking system operating under direction of the software, a group movement corresponding to the travel event of the travellers to the destination (Fig. 1; Para. 28) (…invention further provides a group booking function to make reservations for an entire aircraft, to maximize occupation on charter flights and to reduce booking times compared to booking each seat individually. Further preferably, the present invention includes a group booking function for accommodation to book rooms a group of employees in a bulk fashion without having to do individual bookings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the traveler identification and group booking function of Xu with the system of Garback in order to provide a more efficient system rather than “having to do individual bookings” (See Para. 28 of Xu).
Garback in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Arunachalam teaches that the file of Garback in view of Xu is a bulk file, and that the bulk file is segregated by categories (Paras. 5 and 0023) (...In various embodiments, a method is provided that comprises: receiving, by a data processing system, a request to process transactions within a bulk file; consolidating, by the data processing system, the transactions into batches based on one or more parameters used to define the transactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the bulk file processing features of Arunachalam with the file of Garback in view of Xu in order to more efficiently process the file.
In regard to claim 10, Garback discloses wherein the available flights are compared with the merged prioritized set of rules to assess if each flight is within policy; and meets the and the date and time window for arrival at the destination (Paras. 53-55) (Using the information retrieved from the venue file 14 and the group member file 20, the airline, hotel and ground transportation vendors are selected (i.e., merged prioritized set of rules)…An airline availability request is formatted based upon the time and date of travel requested (the request can be based upon departure or arrival time)… system 10 will continue to interrogate a travel planning website 28 until an available flight is located
In regard to claim 14, Garback discloses a server, in communication with an information storage system having stored thereon details of organization travel rules, details of the individuals, and travel policies of the individuals (Paras. 23, 25-26, 29 and 34) (The system of the present invention also includes a central processing unit which is in communication with the database and with a plurality of travel planning websites via the Internet. The central processing unit is responsive to the individual travel request data entered on the terminal, and is programmed to emulate the decision making process of the typical corporate travel arranger (i.e., server, in communication with an information storage system) …the present invention provides a database which contains a number of separate data files…(i.e., an information storage system having stored thereon). A system for managing travel within a sponsoring organization is provided (i.e., organization)… The database can further include a travel policy file which contains information on preselected airline carriers, preselected room accommodation providers, and preselected ground transportation providers. Normally, these vendors have been selected via negotiation with the sponsoring organization (i.e., organization travel rules).) A group member data file is provided for each individual member of the sponsoring organization. The group member file contains group member information…personal data about the traveler and, optionally, preference information known about that group member, such as his/her preferences on airline seating, non-smoking arrangements, frequent flier membership, meal preferences, etc. (i.e., details of the individuals, and travel policies of the individuals). )
Garback discloses the server having a non-transitory computer-readable data storage with software stored therein, the software, upon execution by the server configured to cause the server to operate (Paras. 2, 34-35, 49; Fig. 1) (This invention relates generally to the field of computerized travel planning and booking system…. a machine readable program is provided containing instructions for controlling a device for managing travel within a sponsoring organization…The system of the present invention also includes a central processing unit which is in communication with the database …The central processing unit is responsive to the individual travel request data entered on the terminal, and is programmed to emulate the decision making process of the typical corporate travel arranger.).
Garback discloses a file uploaded to the server of the booking system (Paras. 24-25, 45, and 47) (…the present invention provides a database which contains a number of separate data files… a database 12 containing at least one venue file 14, a travel policy file 16, and a city decode file 18…individual group member files 20 are also provided..)
Garback discloses the file relating to a travel event defining a date/time window for arrival of the plurality of individuals at a destination, the file including predetermined categories of mandatory information regarding each one of said travellers sufficient to create a booking, and additional travel policy properties of the organization (Paras. 23-26, 29, 44 and 54) (One file, called a venue file, contains information about a specific venue for which individual travelers from the same sponsoring organization can make travel arrangements. The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends on which it ends (i.e., the file relating to a travel event defining a date/time window for arrival of the plurality of individuals at a destination) the city location of the travel destination, and the address location of the destination within the city (i.e., the file including predetermined categories of mandatory information)…. The database can further include a travel policy file which contains information on preselected airline carriers, preselected room accommodation providers, and preselected ground transportation providers. Normally, these vendors have been selected via negotiation with the sponsoring organization (i.e., additional travel policy properties of the organization).)
Garback discloses as a rule merger that merges the organization travel rules stored in the information storage system and the additional travel policy properties of the organization in the file, said merging occurring to generate and store a merged set of prioritized rules (Para. 34, 49) (The system of the present invention also includes a central processing unit which is in communication with the database and with a plurality of travel planning websites via the Internet (i.e., store). The central processing unit is responsive to the individual travel request data entered on the terminal, and is programmed to emulate the decision making process of the typical corporate travel arranger. It retrieves information from the temporary individual travel request file, the specific venue file, the travel policy file including the prenegotiated vendors, and the group member file for the individual making the travel requests (i.e., merging the organization travel rules and additional travel property policies of the organization, to generate a merged set of prioritized rules) and, by accessing the flight schedules and other information contained in the travel planning websites, selects the optimum itinerary for that individual group member.)
Garback discloses a search tool to locate one or more flights that correspond to the date/time window, then to select a flight most closely matching the date/time window; and as a booking tool for booking travel for one of said travellers (Paras. 24-25 and 34) (The term “specific venue” refers to a particular travel destination, and can include airline flights… The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends (i.e., date)…It retrieves information from the temporary individual travel request file, the specific venue file, the travel policy file including the prenegotiated vendors, and the group member file for the individual making the travel requests and, by accessing the flight schedules and other information contained in the travel planning websites (i.e., a search tool to locate one or more flights that correspond to the date/time window), selects the optimum itinerary for that individual group member (i.e., then to select a flight most closely matching the date/time window). The airline, hotel and ground transportation selections are then booked and displayed on the user terminal.)
Garback discloses a checking tool to check that the flight and available fare levels accords with the organisation's polices (Paras. 33, 47, and 50-51) (The system 10 then performs a price check by further interrogating the travel planning websites 28 to discover whether there are any lower published fares available for the same venue. If lower fares are discovered, the system 10 may cancel the original bookings and rebook the itinerary by using the lower published fares).
Garback discloses wherein the booking tool is configured to book travel for one of the travellers to the destination in accordance with the merged set of rules and is configured on successful completion to output the bookings to the individual (Paras. 24-25 and 34) (The term “specific venue” refers to a particular travel destination, and can include airline flights… One file, called a venue file, contains information about a specific venue for which individual travelers from the same sponsoring organization can make travel arrangements . The venue file can include, for example, information such as the date on which the travel begins, the date on which it ends…It retrieves information from the temporary individual travel request file, the specific venue file, the travel policy file including the prenegotiated vendors, and the group member file (i.e., in accordance with the merged set of rules) for the individual making the travel requests and, by accessing the flight schedules and other information contained in the travel planning websites, selects the optimum itinerary for that individual group member. The airline, hotel and ground transportation selections are then booked and displayed on the user terminal (i.e., on successful completion to output the bookings to the individual).)
Garback does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Xu teaches whereby at least a portion of the individuals are indicated as travellers for travel to a destination; that the booking travel is for each one of said travellers; and that the booking tool (of Garback) is configured to book travel for each one of said travellers (Fig. 1; Para. 28) (…invention further provides a group booking function to make reservations for an entire aircraft, to maximize occupation on charter flights and to reduce booking times compared to booking each seat individually. Further preferably, the present invention includes a group booking function for accommodation to book rooms a group of employees in a bulk fashion without having to do individual bookings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the traveler identification and group booking function of Xu with the system of Garback in order to provide a more efficient system rather than “having to do individual bookings” (See Para. 28 of Xu).
Garback in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Arunachalam teaches that the file of Garback in view of Xu is a bulk file, and that the bulk file is segregated by categories (Paras. 5) (...In various embodiments, a method is provided that comprises: receiving, by a data processing system, a request to process transactions within a bulk file; consolidating, by the data processing system, the transactions into batches based on one or more parameters used to define the transactions).
Garback in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Arunachalam teaches that the server operates: as a bulk file parser that reads and operates upon a bulk file uploaded to the server of the… system (Paras. 23-24 and 33) (…a “bulk file” is a data structure that allows a user to submit multiple data transactions (e.g., payment records) in a single file upload…The bulk file processing, utilizing CPU capabilities, typically includes receiving and parsing the bulk file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the bulk file processing features of Arunachalam with the file of Garback in view of Xu in order to more efficiently process the file.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 11-12 and 15-17 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b).
In addition to the above cited prior art, the closest prior art includes:
U.S. Patent No. 5,021,953 to Webber et al. (hereinafter “Webber). Webber discloses automatically taking into account details of a preset corporate travel policy, as well as of individual preferences, for booking travel.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0134372 to Ruis Lopez et al. (hereinafter “Ruis Lopez”). Ruis Lopez discloses a travel management system that provides a centralized location for storing data relating to user and corporate profiles, user and corporate preferences, corporate agreements, and corporate travel policies.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0206363 to Gove (hereinafter “Gove”). Gove discloses enabling a user to search and book travel for multiple people from multiple locations aroun