CTNF 18/521,722 CTNF 87827 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment entered on 11/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 are new claims added. Claims 21-40 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms . The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent Number 11,868,879 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 10,318,865. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are a broader version of the claims that appear in both Patents, as they are all directed to automatically finding and rebooking a reservation if a cheaper equivalent option appears later by using machine learning to pull out important details like dates, price, location, or confirmation numbers; and scans available inventory from booking sites and compare it against the user’s existing reservation in order to find a similar option with a lower price to book the new option and cancel the old one. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 27, 38 and 40 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. Claims 27, 38 and 40 recite the limitation “ such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity” , and the term “appears” is considered unclear and indefinite. The limitation recites the request to “appear” to be made from a location or device, however, no criteria to determine or measure the “appearance” is found in the specification, as the metes and bounds of this term are unclear and it cannot be clearly determined how closely a request is made automatically by a computer to “appear” to be made by a user. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 21-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 1 analysis: In the instant case, the claims are directed to a system, method and medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A analysis: Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract ideas of Mental Processes- “Concepts performed in the human mind ( including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, Mathematical Concepts ( including mathematical relationships, formulas, and/or calculations ), and Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic principles or practices such as hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis: The independent claims 21 and 31 recite: “monitoring an inventory for an alternative reservation that is equivalent to the reservation and that has a lower price than the reservation, wherein determining that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation includes”- this limitation corresponds to evaluate and analyze data regarding a reservation; being a mental process/abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitation also corresponds to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas ; “ comparing the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter with the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter to determine a similarity value, the similarity value being above a predetermined threshold indicating that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation ” - this limitation amounts to an evaluation step for comparing parameters related to a reservation, being evaluating and judging steps directed to mental processes/abstract idea; “ in response to detecting, via the monitoring, the alternative reservation equivalent to the reservation but with a lower price: generating, based on the one or more inventory parameters and respective value for each inventory parameter associated with the alternative reservation, a request for the alternative reservation that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the alternative reservation to automatically book the alternative reservation ” - this limitation amounts to observation and judgment steps (which is a mental step) for booking a reservation according to certain parameters, being an abstract idea. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas; “ executing the request, such that the alternative reservation is automatically booked” – this limitations corresponds to a final decision made to determine a best price to book a reservation. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a booking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas. The booking being automatic is analyzed as an additional element under Prong 2 below ; “ in response to receiving a confirmation of the booking of the alternative reservation from the booking entity associated with the alternative reservation: generating, based on the one or more parameters and respective value for each parameter associated with the reservation, a cancellation request that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the reservation to automatically cancel the reservation ” - this limitation amounts to judgment steps (which is a mental step) for modifying a reservation according to certain parameters, being an abstract idea. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas; “executing the cancellation request, such that the reservation is automatically cancelled”- this limitation amounts to cancelling or rebooking a reservation if prices drop in the future according to certain monitored parameters, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas. Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only recites these additional elements: “ at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor operatively connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” - these generic computer components are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)) . “ obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter” - this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering of reservation parameters and it is considered a pre-solution activity (data gathering), being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ); “ obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter ” - this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering of inventory parameters and it is considered a pre- solution activity (data gathering), being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ); “ automatic booking” -this amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)); Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recited at Claims 21 and 31 above amount to no more than pre-solution activities (insignificant extra solution activities), and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer. Moreover, re-evaluation of any additional elements or combination of elements that were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Claims 21 and 31 are needed to determine if they are considered well-understood, routine and conventional limitations: “ obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter” - this limitation further amounts to receiving or transmitting dataset over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i); “ obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter ” - this limitation further amounts to receiving or transmitting dataset over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i). Dependent claims 22-30, 32-39 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims are reciting further embellishment of the judicial exception. Claim 22: this claim recites further embellishment about evaluation and judgment steps for validating reservation parameters, which correspond to abstract ideas. Claim 23: this claim recites further embellishment about the information used for evaluation and judgment steps for validating reservation parameters, which correspond to abstract ideas. Claim 24: this claim recites further embellishment about evaluation by determining potential of cancellation based on a policy, which correspond to abstract ideas. Further, this amounts to hedging, being fundamental economic practices. Claim 25: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. The automatic part of the cancellation is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 26: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. Further, it recites the matching of a device, interpreted as evaluating and judging steps. The automatic part of the cancellation is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 27: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. The automatic part of the cancellation done via a proxy is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 28: this claim recites imitating actions of a human user, which amount to managing personal behavior and/or thinking or behaving like a person, being abstract ideas. Claim 29: this limitation amounts to receiving or transmitting username and password of a user over a network, further considered being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ), and well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i). Claim 30: this limitation corresponds to converting data into vectors and comparing them, which is reasonably interpreted as mathematical calculations and relationships, being abstract ideas. Claim 32: this limitation amounts to receiving or transmitting username and password of a user over a network, further considered being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ), and well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i). Claim 33: this limitation corresponds to converting data into vectors and comparing them, which is reasonably interpreted as mathematical calculations and relationships, being abstract ideas. Claim 34: this claim recites further embellishment about evaluation and judgment steps for validating reservation parameters, which correspond to abstract ideas. Claim 35: this claim recites further embellishment about evaluation by determining potential of cancellation based on a policy, which correspond to abstract ideas. Further, this amounts to hedging, being fundamental economic practices. Claim 36: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. The automatic part of the cancellation is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 37: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. Further, it recites the matching of a device, interpreted as evaluating and judging steps. The automatic part of the cancellation is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 38: this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. The automatic part of the cancellation done via a proxy is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 39: this claim recites imitating actions of a human user, which amount to managing personal behavior and/or thinking or behaving like a person, being abstract ideas. Claim 40: “monitoring an inventory for an alternative reservation that is equivalent to the reservation and that has a lower price than the reservation, wherein determining that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation includes”- this limitation corresponds to evaluate and analyze data regarding a reservation; being a mental process/abstract idea. Furthermore, the limitation also corresponds to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas ; “ comparing the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter with the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter to determine a similarity value, the similarity value being above a predetermined threshold indicating that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation ” - this limitation amounts to an evaluation step for comparing parameters related to a reservation, being evaluating and judging steps directed to mental processes/abstract idea; “ in response to detecting, via the monitoring, the alternative reservation equivalent to the reservation but with a lower price: generating, based on the one or more inventory parameters and respective value for each inventory parameter associated with the alternative reservation, a request for the alternative reservation that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the alternative reservation to automatically book the alternative reservation ” - this limitation amounts to observation and judgment steps (which is a mental step) for booking a reservation according to certain parameters, being an abstract idea. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas; “ executing the request, such that the alternative reservation is automatically booked” – this limitations corresponds to a final decision made to determine a best price to book a reservation. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a booking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas. The booking being automatic is analyzed as an additional element under Prong 2 below ; “ in response to receiving a confirmation of the booking of the alternative reservation from the booking entity associated with the alternative reservation: generating, based on the one or more parameters and respective value for each parameter associated with the reservation, a cancellation request that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the reservation to automatically cancel the reservation ” - this limitation amounts to judgment steps (which is a mental step) for modifying a reservation according to certain parameters, being an abstract idea. Furthermore, this limitation also amounts to monitoring price of a reservation to allow a change or rebooking if prices drop in the future, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas; “executing the cancellation request, such that the reservation is automatically cancelled”- this limitation amounts to cancelling or rebooking a reservation if prices drop in the future according to certain monitored parameters, which amounts to hedging/ fundamental economic practices/abstract ideas. “wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes: configuring a cancellation device to match a configuration of a user device included in the user identity”- this claim recites further embellishment about the automatic cancellation of a reservation, directed to hedging. Further, it recites the matching of a device, interpreted as evaluating and judging steps. Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only recites these additional elements: “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions executable by at least one processor to perform operations, including” - these generic computer components are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)) . “ obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter” - this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering of reservation parameters and it is considered a pre-solution activity (data gathering), being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ); “ obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter ” - this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering of inventory parameters and it is considered a pre- solution activity (data gathering), being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ); “obtaining a user identity associated with the reservation” - this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering of user identity information and it is considered a pre-solution activity (data gathering), being an insignificant extra solution activity ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ); “ automatic booking” -this amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)); “causing the cancellation device to execute the cancellation request via a proxy server such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity”- The automatic part of the cancellation done via a proxy is recited at a high level such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recited at Claim 40 above amount to no more than pre-solution activities (insignificant extra solution activities), and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer. Moreover, re-evaluation of any additional elements or combination of elements that were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Claim 40 are needed to determine if they are considered well-understood, routine and conventional limitations: “ obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter” - this limitation further amounts to receiving or transmitting dataset over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i); “ obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter ” - this limitation further amounts to receiving or transmitting dataset over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i); “obtaining a user identity associated with the reservation” - this limitation further amounts to receiving or transmitting dataset over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-25, 30-31, 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siman-Tov et al (US Pub. 2017/0293868- hereinafter Siman-Tov) . Referring to Claim 21 , Siman-Tov teaches a system, comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (see [0046]: “The system 200 includes one or more processors 206 and a program store 204, also referred to as a memory, for storing instructions for executing a flight ticket rebooking process and a flight tickets discovery process”) ; and at least one processor operatively connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (see [0046]: “The system 200 includes one or more processors 206 and a program store 204, also referred to as a memory, for storing instructions for executing a flight ticket rebooking process and a flight tickets discovery process”) , including: obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter (see [0019]: “gathering purchased flight data by identifying, for each one of the plurality of purchased flight legs, a plurality of values each of one of a plurality of flight leg parameters comprising at least a price, a flight class, departure time, and arrival time” ) ; monitoring an inventory for an alternative reservation that is equivalent to the reservation and that has a lower price than the reservation, wherein determining that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation includes (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data, in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0044]: “The method 100 involves continuous or iterative monitoring of flight legs available for purchase at one or more network sources for identifying alternative flight ticket(s), including the same flight ticket in a lower price”. Further at [0054]: “As shown at 103, in each of one or more matching iterations, one or more network resources 150 such as flight leg search engines are queried by the system 202, for instance an executed flight tickets discovery process, for finding one or more matches (for brevity referred to herein a match) between respective plurality of values of each of the plurality of purchased flight legs (and optionally additional data as depicted in FIG. 3) and respective values of members of a subgroup of a plurality of offered for sale flight legs”) : obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data , in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0054]: “As shown at 103, in each of one or more matching iterations, one or more network resources 150 such as flight leg search engines are queried by the system 202, for instance an executed flight tickets discovery process, for finding one or more matches (for brevity referred to herein a match) between respective plurality of values o f each of the plurality of purchased flight legs (and optionally additional data as depicted in FIG. 3) and respective values of members of a subgroup of a plurality of offered for sale flight legs”) ; and comparing the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter with the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter to determine a similarity value, the similarity value being above a predetermined threshold indicating that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data , in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0044]: “The method 100 involves continuous or iterative monitoring of flight legs available for purchase at one or more network sources for identifying alternative flight ticket(s), including the same flight ticket in a lower price ”. Further at [0061]: “The process iteratively queries for a match for values of flight legs of a purchased flight ticket as described above and when a match is found and the respective rebooking advisability rank is above a threshold , a notification is sent to the user who submitted the respective purchased flight ticket”. Therefore, based on Siman-Tov’s advisability rank being above a threshold, it would have been obvious that the match between the values of the existing reservation and the new alternative reservation are above a threshold in order to process with the automatic rebooking to save money to the user, as suggested by Siman-Tov at 0033: “ The methods and systems provide a user with a simple user experience for rebooking a purchased flight ticket with an alternative or identical, but cheaper, flight ticket that provides more value to the user at no or low cost” ) ; in response to detecting, via the monitoring, the alternative reservation equivalent to the reservation but with a lower price: generating, based on the one or more inventory parameters and respective value for each inventory parameter associated with the alternative reservation, a request for the alternative reservation that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the alternative reservation to automatically book the alternative reservation (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and executing the request, such that the alternative reservation is automatically booked (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and in response to receiving a confirmation of the booking of the alternative reservation from the booking entity associated with the alternative reservation: generating, based on the one or more parameters and respective value for each parameter associated with the reservation, a cancellation request that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the reservation to automatically cancel the reservation (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and executing the cancellation request, such that the reservation is automatically cancelled (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) . Referring to Claim 22 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein obtaining the one or more parameters for the reservation as well as the respective value for each parameter includes validating the one or more parameters for the reservation as well as the respective value for each of the one or more parameters with external information (see [0077]: “The discovery process is optimized according to the probability of finding an alternative flight ticket. In each of the matching iterations, flight search results are ranked and filtered as described above, for instance according to the user's preferences and historical data for the user and similar users”. Therefore this ranking and filtering according to the user’s data is interpreted as validating the parameters for the reservation) . Referring to Claim 23 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the external information comprises at least one of an address, name, date, or phone number (see [0044]: “A client terminal may be any device that can be used by a user to designate a flight ticket, for instance by inputting a flight identifier such as a combination of a PNR (Passenger Name Record ) number and a family name of a traveler and/or uploading the details of a flight itinerary, for instance uploading an itinerary confirmation email (e-ticket) via an e-mail and/or uploading user interface (UI). The client terminal may be a Smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop and/or the like. An application may be a browser executed widget, an Application store installed application, a desktop application and/or any executable that is running on processor(s). When a combination of a PNR number and a family name is inputted, a Global Distribution System (GDS) or another booking system may be queried by a search platform of the system for acquiring the values of the respective flight legs”). Referring to Claim 24 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein determining that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation is further based on a cancellation policy of the reservation (see [0048]: “Other values may be an aircraft model and version, an airline, a seat type, amenities associated with the flight ticket, meal evaluation score or type, luggage check-in costs, fare class, flight duration, layover times, number of connections, mileage point accrual , Fare rules, Cancellation fee, Change fee, Per leg fee , Per leg Departure/arrival times, and/or Airport ranks. Some of the values may be extracted from the purchased flight ticket and other may be identified by using the values of the purchased flight ticket to build a search query and/or queries which are inputted to suitable network resources and/or to a flight leg database that documents information about different flights, for instance indexed based on a flight leg number”) . Referring to Claim 25 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the operations further include: obtaining a user identity associated with the reservation, wherein executing the cancellation request such that the reservation is automatically cancelled includes executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity (see [0069]: “a rebooking process that involves both booking an alternative flight ticket and cancelling the purchased flight ticket is initiated, for example see FIG. 8 which depicts a rebooking process according to some embodiments of the present invention. The rebooking process may be initiated by a single selection, for instance a touch or a click. Optionally, when payment information and required passenger details of the user are provided in advance, for example on a registration stage, the process may be completed without further action from the user”) . Referring to Claim 30 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein comparing the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter with the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter to determine the similarity value includes: converting the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter into one or more first feature vectors; converting the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter into one or more second feature vectors; and performing a vector comparison between the one or more first feature vectors and the one or more second feature vectors (see [0049]: “The values of the purchased flight ticket are optionally stored in a purchased flight record, for example as a feature vector, a matrix , and/or any other dataset”. Further at [0052]: “ Optionally, an aggregate preference matrix is generated from an analysis of the historical data, for instance by a scoring of latest historical flight leg data records based on date and similarity. Similarity may be estimated by matching values of flight leg parameters of flight legs of the purchased ticket with values of flight leg parameters of flight legs documented in historical data of users”) . Referring to independent Claim 31 , it is rejected on the same basis as independent claim 21, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claim 33 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 30, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claim 34 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claims 22-23, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claim 35 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 24, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claim 36 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 25, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 26 and 37 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S iman-Tov et al (US Pub. 2017/0293868- hereinafter Siman-Tov) in view of Zimmermann et al (US Pub. No. 2016/0105317- hereinafter Zimmermann, as submitted in IDS dated 11/28/2023). R eferring to Claim 26 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 25, however, fails to teach wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes: configuring a cancellation device to match a configuration of a user device included in the user identity; and causing the cancellation device to execute the cancellation request. Zimmermann teaches, in an analogous system: configuring a cancellation device to match a configuration of a user device included in the user identity (see Zimmermann at [0020]: “An infrastructure management system may be automatically updated to add and/or update discovered IT devices—based on IT device type, protocol requirements, discovery rules, existing IT device(s) already added in the system, combinations thereof, and/or the like. Configuration cloning may be employed in the adding and/or updating of IT device(s)”) ; and causing the cancellation device to execute the cancellation request (see Zimmermann at [0019]: “An agent may comprise a computer program that acts for a user or other program in a relationship of agency, which derives from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such “ action on behalf of” implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate. Some agents may comprise, but are not limited to: intelligent agents (in particular exhibiting some aspect of artificial intelligence, such as learning and reasoning), autonomous agents (capable of modifying the way in which the agent achieves objectives)”. Therefore, having the capability of an agent to act on behalf of a user is interpreted as causing the device by itself to execute a cancellation, as Zimmermann’s system acts on behalf of a user) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Zimmermann by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user from a device having the same configuration, as taught by Zimmermann. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use intelligent agents using the same user’s device configuration to act on the user’s behalf having the authority to determine an appropriate action (as suggested by Zimmermann at [0019]: “ An agent may comprise a computer program that acts for a user or other program in a relationship of agency, which derives from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such “action on behalf of” implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate ”). Referring to dependent Claim 37 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 26, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 27-28 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siman-Tov et al (US Pub. 2017/0293868- hereinafter Siman-Tov) in view of Lei et al (US Pub. No. 2013/0254139- hereinafter Lei, as submitted in IDS dated 11/28/2023) . Referring to Claim 27 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 25, however, fails to teach wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes executing the cancellation request via a proxy server such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity. Lei teaches, in an analogous system, wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes executing the cancellation request via a proxy server such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity (see Lei at [0016]: “FIG. 11 illustrates the case in which the designed assistant makes use of utility software and proxy for the observer and imitator functionalities , while the proxy is embedded/implemented within the client software, and the utility software can be standalone”. Further at [0053]: “execution engine 106 may include an imitator module 1007 that enables repeating/imitating what the user performed on/via the computing device according to user actions observed and recorded in the "learning by observing" process. Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Lei by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user using a proxy server, as taught by Lei. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically imitate the user's actions such as rebooking a reservation, and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user using a proxy server (as suggested by Lei at [0053]: “ Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task… For example, using the imitator functionality, the assistant can repeat/imitate the user's actions (e.g. clicking, typing in a user interface, browsing/navigating with a browser), and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user ”). Referring to Claim 28 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 25, wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes imitating actions of a human user associated with the user identity (see Siman-Tov at [0069]: “a rebooking process that involves both booking an alternative flight ticket and cancelling the purchased flight ticket is initiated, for example see FIG. 8 which depicts a rebooking process according to some embodiments of the present invention. The rebooking process may be initiated by a single selection, for instance a touch or a click. Optionally, when payment information and required passenger details of the user are provided in advance, for example on a registration stage, the process may be completed without further action from the user ”. Therefore, this automatic rebooking process is interpreted as imitating actions of a human user doing the rebooking himself/herself) . Even though Siman-Tov implicitly teaches imitating actions of a human user by performing the automatic rebooking, Lei teaches it, as it can be seen at [0053]: “execution engine 106 may include an imitator module 1007 that enables repeating/imitating what the user performed on/via the computing device according to user actions observed and recorded in the "learning by observing" process. Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task” . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Lei by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user by imitating the user’s actions, as taught by Lei. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically imitate the user's actions such as rebooking a reservation, and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user using a proxy server (as suggested by Lei at [0053]: “ Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task… For example, using the imitator functionality, the assistant can repeat/imitate the user's actions (e.g. clicking, typing in a user interface, browsing/navigating with a browser), and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user ”). Referring to dependent Claim 38 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 27, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claim 39 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 28, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siman-Tov et al (US Pub. 2017/0293868- hereinafter Siman-Tov) in view of Jones-McFadden et al (US Pub. No 2018/0103112 - hereinafter Jones) . Referring to Claim 29 , Siman-Tov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter are obtained from an email account of a user, and by using a username and password associated with the user (see Siman-Tov at [0044]: “When an email of a flight is uploaded a parser may be used to parse the email or file in order to retrieve the values of the respective flight legs. Optionally, information missing after the parsing or the acquisition of a flight ticket via a GDS is acquired by querying network sources, for instance an API of a respective airline and/or an airport website . The uploading and the acquisition of the missing parts may be done by a designated module”. Therefore, the value of the parameters are acquired from an email, and further from an API of the respective airline or airport website, which the user needs to have an account for) . Even though Siman-Tov inherently teaches obtaining parameters from an email account using user name and password, as it is implied that users need to have an account with email and password for booking a reservation (as explained above), Jones teaches, in an analogous system, wherein the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter are obtained from an email account of a user, and by using a username and password associated with the user (see Jones at [0077-0078]: “In other embodiments, the system 160 may prompt the user 110 to provide authentication information associated with third party interaction accounts in order to extract user-specific information associated with the user's account with the third party such as pricing and billing information , membership status, subscription signup and renewal dates, products and/or services available to the user 110 with the user's current subscription plan, offers available to the user , and the like. In some embodiments, the system 160 identifies benefits associated with the user's specific third party interaction account from the information extracted from the third party system 192 and presents the benefits of the account to the user 110 in the actionable notification. Benefits associated with a user's third party interaction account may comprise earned reward points, funds stored on the account, a grandfathered pricing option that is no longer available to new customers , elevated membership status , and the like”. Therefore, Jones teaches extracting user’s data from a user account once the user has authenticated, which requires username and password login for the system to extract all the information needed to offer the user a better price or upgrades (such as rewards)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Jones by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user by extracting reservation details from the user’s account, as taught by Jones. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically identify any offers that may be applicable to the user based on the details extracted from the user account (as suggested by Jones at [0078]: “ the system 160 identifies benefits associated with the user's specific third party interaction account from the information extracted from the third party system 192 and presents the benefits of the account to the user 110 in the actionable notification ”). Referring to dependent Claim 32 , it is rejected on the same basis as dependent claim 29, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 0 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S iman-Tov et al (US Pub. 2017/0293868- hereinafter Siman-Tov) in view of Zimmermann et al (US Pub. No. 2016/0105317- hereinafter Zimmermann, as submitted in IDS dated 11/28/2023) and further in view of Lei et al (US Pub. No. 2013/0254139- hereinafter Lei, as submitted in IDS dated 11/28/2023). R eferring to Claim 40 , Siman-Tov teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the instructions executable by at least one processor to perform operations (see [0046]: “The system 200 includes one or more processors 206 and a program store 204, also referred to as a memory, for storing instructions for executing a flight ticket rebooking process and a flight tickets discovery process”) , including: obtaining one or more parameters of a reservation and a respective value for each parameter (see [0019]: “gathering purchased flight data by identifying, for each one of the plurality of purchased flight legs, a plurality of values each of one of a plurality of flight leg parameters comprising at least a price, a flight class, departure time, and arrival time” ) ; monitoring an inventory for an alternative reservation that is equivalent to the reservation and that has a lower price than the reservation, wherein determining that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation includes (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data, in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0044]: “The method 100 involves continuous or iterative monitoring of flight legs available for purchase at one or more network sources for identifying alternative flight ticket(s), including the same flight ticket in a lower price”. Further at [0054]: “As shown at 103, in each of one or more matching iterations, one or more network resources 150 such as flight leg search engines are queried by the system 202, for instance an executed flight tickets discovery process, for finding one or more matches (for brevity referred to herein a match) between respective plurality of values of each of the plurality of purchased flight legs (and optionally additional data as depicted in FIG. 3) and respective values of members of a subgroup of a plurality of offered for sale flight legs”) : obtaining one or more inventory parameters associated with the alternative reservation and a respective value for each inventory parameter (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data , in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0054]: “As shown at 103, in each of one or more matching iterations, one or more network resources 150 such as flight leg search engines are queried by the system 202, for instance an executed flight tickets discovery process, for finding one or more matches (for brevity referred to herein a match) between respective plurality of values o f each of the plurality of purchased flight legs (and optionally additional data as depicted in FIG. 3) and respective values of members of a subgroup of a plurality of offered for sale flight legs”) ; and comparing the one or more parameters and the respective value for each parameter with the one or more inventory parameters and the respective value for each inventory parameter to determine a similarity value, the similarity value being above a predetermined threshold indicating that the alternative reservation is equivalent to the reservation (see [0019]: “in each of a plurality of matching iterations , querying at least one flight leg database for a match indicative of an alternative flight ticket based on the purchased flight data , in each of a plurality of matching iterations”. Further at [0044]: “The method 100 involves continuous or iterative monitoring of flight legs available for purchase at one or more network sources for identifying alternative flight ticket(s), including the same flight ticket in a lower price ”. Further at [0061]: “The process iteratively queries for a match for values of flight legs of a purchased flight ticket as described above and when a match is found and the respective rebooking advisability rank is above a threshold , a notification is sent to the user who submitted the respective purchased flight ticket”. Therefore, based on Siman-Tov’s advisability rank being above a threshold, it would have been obvious that the match between the values of the existing reservation and the new alternative reservation are above a threshold in order to process with the automatic rebooking to save money to the user, as suggested by Siman-Tov at 0033: “ The methods and systems provide a user with a simple user experience for rebooking a purchased flight ticket with an alternative or identical, but cheaper, flight ticket that provides more value to the user at no or low cost” ) ; in response to detecting, via the monitoring, the alternative reservation equivalent to the reservation but with a lower price: obtaining a user identity associated with the reservation (see [0069]: “The rebooking process may be initiated by a single selection, for instance a touch or a click. Optionally, when payment information and required passenger details of the user are provided in advance, for example on a registration stage, the process may be completed without further action from the user”) ; generating, based on the one or more inventory parameters and respective value for each inventory parameter associated with the alternative reservation, a request for the alternative reservation that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the alternative reservation to automatically book the alternative reservation (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and executing the request, such that the alternative reservation is automatically booked (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and in response to receiving a confirmation of the booking of the alternative reservation from the booking entity associated with the alternative reservation: generating, based on the one or more parameters and respective value for each parameter associated with the reservation, a cancellation request that is executable to cause a booking entity associated with the reservation to automatically cancel the reservation (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) ; and executing the cancellation request, as the obtained user identity, such that the reservation is automatically cancelled (see [0043]: “a flowchart of a method 100 of flight discovery process wherein an automatic or semi-automatic flight ticket rebooking is managed according to some embodiments of the present invention. As used herein a rebooking process is a process wherein a purchased flight ticket is cancelled and an offered for sale flight ticket is automatically booked and ticketed based on continuous or iterative searching in one or more network resources, according to some embodiments of the present invention”) . However, Siman-Tov fails to teach wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes: configuring a cancellation device to match a configuration of a user device included in the user identity; and causing the cancellation device to execute the cancellation request via a proxy server such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity. Zimmermann teaches, in an analogous system, wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes: configuring a cancellation device to match a configuration of a user device included in the user identity (see Zimmermann at [0020]: “An infrastructure management system may be automatically updated to add and/or update discovered IT devices—based on IT device type, protocol requirements, discovery rules, existing IT device(s) already added in the system, combinations thereof, and/or the like. Configuration cloning may be employed in the adding and/or updating of IT device(s)”. Further at [0019]: “An agent may comprise a computer program that acts for a user or other program in a relationship of agency, which derives from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such “ action on behalf of” implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate. Some agents may comprise, but are not limited to: intelligent agents (in particular exhibiting some aspect of artificial intelligence, such as learning and reasoning), autonomous agents (capable of modifying the way in which the agent achieves objectives)”. Therefore, having the capability of an agent to act on behalf of a user is interpreted as causing the device by itself to execute a cancellation, as Zimmermann’s system acts on behalf of a user) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Zimmermann by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user from a device having the same configuration, as taught by Zimmermann. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use intelligent agents using the same user’s device configuration to act on the user’s behalf having the authority to determine an appropriate action (as suggested by Zimmermann at [0019]: “ An agent may comprise a computer program that acts for a user or other program in a relationship of agency, which derives from the Latin agere (to do): an agreement to act on one's behalf. Such “action on behalf of” implies the authority to decide which, if any, action is appropriate ”). Lei teaches, in an analogous system, wherein executing the cancellation request as the obtained user identity includes: causing the cancellation device to execute the cancellation request via a proxy server such that the cancellation request appears to originate from a location or computing device associated with the user identity (see Lei at [0016]: “FIG. 11 illustrates the case in which the designed assistant makes use of utility software and proxy for the observer and imitator functionalities , while the proxy is embedded/implemented within the client software, and the utility software can be standalone”. Further at [0053]: “execution engine 106 may include an imitator module 1007 that enables repeating/imitating what the user performed on/via the computing device according to user actions observed and recorded in the "learning by observing" process. Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Siman-Tov with the above teachings of Lei by automatically rebooking a reservation of a user based on a better price, as taught by Siman-Tov, and doing this rebooking on behalf of the user using a proxy server, as taught by Lei. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically imitate the user's actions such as rebooking a reservation, and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user using a proxy server (as suggested by Lei at [0053]: “ Imitator module 1007 can interact with the underlying operation system or platform of the hosting device to perform the task on the user's behalf, just as the user would interact with the underlying platform directly to perform the task… For example, using the imitator functionality, the assistant can repeat/imitate the user's actions (e.g. clicking, typing in a user interface, browsing/navigating with a browser), and to finish the task as if it were performed by the user ”) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 2005/0160140 Kadyk et al (Kadyk is pertinent art as it discloses the use of a proxy server to book a reservation on user’s behalf ( see [0037]: “In the method of FIG. 3, the first act performed by the expert proxy server 130 is that the expert proxy server determines that a service is to be provided to a wireless device (act 320). In most cases, the user determines what services are to be provided by subscribing to the content of interest. They expert proxy server then provides the services to the device on the user's behalf”. Further at [0055]: “For example, the expert proxy server could communicate with a number of applications hosted by the airlines to determine available flights that satisfy the constraints in the request, or to determine any of the user's reservations on at that airline. This may involve extensive communication with these applications which is handled by the expert proxy server instead of by the wireless device ”)) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A SITIRICHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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. /LUIS A SITIRICHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 2 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 3 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 4 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 5 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 6 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 7 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 8 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 9 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 10 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 11 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 12 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 13 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 14 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 15 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 16 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 17 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 18 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 19 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 20 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 21 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 22 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 23 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 24 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 25 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 26 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 27 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 28 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 29 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 30 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 31 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 32 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 33 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 34 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 35 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 36 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 37 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 38 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 39 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 40 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 41 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 42 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 43 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 18/521,722 Page 44 Art Unit: 2126
Prosecution Insights