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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated January 28, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on May 28, 2025, claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended. No claims were cancelled or added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 are currently pending and subject to the below non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. Specifically, that the claims are “not directed merely to organizing human activity or performing mental steps, but rather to a specific technological workflow” (Remarks p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the abstract idea of facilitating travel bookings between customers and suppliers, which is certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., establishing business relationships and performing sales activities) as well as mental processes. The recitation of additional elements in the claims does not negate the recited judicial exceptions. Instead, the additional elements are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 to see if they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). With respect to the limitations of “receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer” and “updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received real-time data”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these are mental processes. For example, a human can receive data from a supplier showing that the supplier is discounting air travel tickets to a particular destination. The human can then update a set of rules to prioritize the supplier with the discount and/or travel through the discounted destination. Examiner notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Applicant further argues that the judicial exception is integrated in to a practical application. Specifically, that the claims “provide a system for acquiring and aggregating booking information from multiple sources regardless of the format in which that booking information is received” similar to Example 42 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Remarks p. 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's claims have been amended to add "receiving real-time data" (Amended Claims 1, 8, and 15). Receiving real-time data is not the same as sharing information in real time, which was part of the technical improvement in claim 1 of Example 42. Furthermore, Applicant’s claims do not recite a “specific improvement over prior art systems”. Instead, as described in the 101 rejection below and the Final Rejection dated 1/28/2025 (p. 3-4), the claims recite generic computer functions performed on generic computer components, described at a high-level of detail. As such, the claims are similar to claim 2 of Example 42 where the abstract idea was not integrated into a practical application because the “claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing medical records update process”.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, “updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received real-time data” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support “can be found at least at paragraph [0040] of the specification” (see Remarks, p. 8). Applicant’s specification teaches: applying routing rules to determine particular supplier systems to which the request should be routed [0036, 0041, 0057]; requests may be routed based on real-time availability of inventory [0039]; routing can be performed based on a real-time pitch from a supplier [0040]; updating an itinerary data structure [0049], and updating a booking state identifier [0062]. Examiner notes that basing routing on real-time data from a supplier is not the same as updating a plurality of routing rules because there is no indication in Applicant’s specification that the rules themselves are updated/changed. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 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 1, 8, and 15 recite, “receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims previously recite, “receiving a search request from a customer terminal, the search request including search criteria relating to travel accommodations” (emphasis added). However, there is no mention of a discounted rates being part of the search request. In light of paragraphs [0024, 0027, 0038, 0040, and 0056] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to recite, “receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request; receiving real-time data from a supplier system for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, receiving a search request from a customer, the search request including search criteria relating to travel accommodations;
receiving data from a supplier in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer;
updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received data;
identifying a supplier from among a plurality of suppliers based on a plurality of routing rules, a user profile associated with the customer, and the search criteria, the plurality of routing rules being based on past user behavior and current supplier offers;
transforming the search request into a first format readable by the identified supplier;
routing the transformed request to the identified supplier and to an aggregator;
receiving a first search result from the identified supplier and a second search result from the aggregator;
de-transforming the received first search result and the second search result into a uniform scheme for viewing;
and generating an itinerary data structure that stores the de-transformed first and second search results in an itinerary with a corresponding booking state identifier, the itinerary data structure including a plurality of segments, each of the plurality of segments corresponding to different trip components,
wherein each of the plurality of segments includes source data identifying a particular supplier that provided the corresponding information contained therein.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, facilitating travel bookings between customers and suppliers is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes that the claims specifically recite steps that are designed for “travel searching”, which clarifies such business relationship. As such, the limitations fall into certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, each of the limitations are mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to receive a search request, identify a supplier and aggregator, send and receive information to/from a supplier and aggregator, and store results in an itinerary can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. With respect to the transformation of requests and de-transformation of results, Examiner notes that paragraphs [0042, 0046, 0051, and 0061] of Applicant’s specification describe “transformation” and “de-transformation” as formatting data. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, transforming and de-transforming data includes mental processes (e.g., converting travel dates from mm/dd/yy format to dd/mm/yyyy format or a passenger name from “last, first” to “FIRST LAST”).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: real-time data (claims 1, 8, and 15), a supplier system (claims 1, 8, and 15), a customer terminal (claims 1, 8, and 15), a supplier system from among a plurality of supplier systems (claims 1, 8, and 15), an aggregator system (claims 1, 8, and 15), a communication interface (claims 1, 8, and 15), data storage (claims 1, 8, and 15), a memory (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 15). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality (see paragraphs [0022] of Applicant's PG Publication disclosing “customer terminal”, [0021] disclosing “supplier system” and “aggregator systems”, [0027] disclosing “communication interface”, [0069-0072] disclosing “memory”, [0066-0068] disclosing “processors”, and [0077] disclosing “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional element of an itinerary data structure (claims 1, 8, and 15). This additional element is described at high level of generality (see paragraph [0046] of Applicant's PG Publication disclosing “itinerary data structure”) such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., organizing travel information).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0134372 to Lopez Ruiz et al. (Lopez Ruiz) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0023463 to Dombroski et al. (Dombroski) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0225257 to Tilden et al. (Tilden) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0211031 to Patil (Patil).
As to claim 1, Lopez Ruiz teaches, receiving a search request from a customer terminal, the search request including search criteria relating to travel accommodations (“A search launched in the online self-booking tool may produce travel offerings that contain one or more travel products that are preferably purchased through an online channel …” and “… The data entered by the user may define one or more search parameters, such as an origin/destination city pair, a desired date of travel, and any other parameter that could be used to identify a travel offering which satisfies the itinerary …” [0024 and 0056-0058]);
identifying a supplier system from among a plurality of supplier systems based on the plurality of routing rules, a user profile associated with the customer terminal, and the search criteria (“The third party systems 14 may host a website for an online travel agency, meta-search engine, airline, hotel, or any other third party provider of travel products …” and “… The user profile engine 72 may centralize user profile and travel preference data, thereby enabling search results to be tailored to the specific user requesting the search. By way of example, the user profile engine 72 may provide user data indicating whether the user prefers a particular hotel chain, or participates in a particular frequent flyer rewards program. Search queries and/or search results may be adjusted based on this user preference data …” [0027 and 0034-0036]),
the plurality of routing rules being based on past user behavior and current supplier offers (“… The third party provider database 56 may be searchable based on the characteristics of the travel offerings stored therein … By way of example, the user profile engine 72 may provide user data indicating whether the user prefers a particular hotel chain, or participates in a particular frequent flyer rewards program. Search queries and/or search results may be adjusted based on this user preference data …” [0034-0036] Examiner notes that participation in a frequent flyer rewards program is a “past user behavior” as it indicates a history of flying with a particular carrier);
routing, via a communication interface, the transformed request to the identified supplier system and to an aggregator system (“Embodiments of the invention are directed to systems and methods for providing users with travel-related search results that include products and services from multiple sources, such as a Global Distribution System (GDS) and a website of a third party provider …” and “In block 100, the travel booking system 50 may search one or more of the corporate travel offerings database 58 and global travel offerings database 60 of GDS 12 …” and “… In response to receiving the captured search parameters, the online self-booking tool 52 may launch a parallel search in the GDS 12. This parallel search may identify travel offerings in the corporate travel offerings database 58 and global travel offerings database 60 that satisfy the search parameters …” [0022-0023 and 0049 and 0056-0058]);
receiving, via the communication interface, a first search result from the identified supplier system and a second search result from the aggregator system (“The travel booking system may receive and combine the search results from the website and the GDS, and filter the combined results to eliminate duplicates …” and “In response to receiving the search results from the corporate travel offerings database 58 and the global travel offerings database 60 at the results processing module 80, the travel booking system 50 may proceed to block 102 …” and “In block 118, the results processing module 80 of data siphon tool 54 may capture the search results received from the GDS 12 and the online channel website …” [0023-0024 and 0050-0052 and 0059-0063]);
While Lopez Ruiz [0063-0064] teaches an itinerary, Lopez Ruiz does not teach, transforming the search request into a first format readable by the identified supplier system; de-transforming the received first search result and the second search result into a uniform data storage scheme for viewing on the customer terminal; and generating an itinerary data structure that stores the de-transformed first and second search results in an itinerary data structure with a corresponding booking state identifier, the itinerary data structure including a plurality of segments, each of the plurality of segments corresponding to different trip components. However, Dombroski teaches, transforming the search request into a first format readable by the identified supplier system (“… The travel request processor 74 also includes the software to format the results of the application of the business rules into a format that the booking engine 79 can accept …” [0050]);
de-transforming the received first search result and the second search result into a uniform data storage scheme for viewing on the customer terminal (“… XML is a structured method for putting data in a standardized text format designed specifically for transmitting structured data to web applications …” and “… The booking engine receives the availability information and formats it into a file (step 224). This file contains the information include in a suggested itinerary for the traveler …” [0071-0072 and 0088-0090]);
and generating an itinerary data structure that stores the de-transformed first and second search results in an itinerary data structure with a corresponding booking state identifier, the itinerary data structure including a plurality of segments, each of the plurality of segments corresponding to different trip components (“… The core object 110 creates an instance of the itinerary class 116 using the booking engine translator 118 which splits the confirmed itinerary received from the GDS 82 via the booking engine 79, allowing the creation of an itinerary object. The itinerary class 116 contains the air class 124, the car class 126, the hotel class 128, and the appointment class 130 as public classes. An itinerary object may have multiple instances of each of an appointment object, an air object, a car object, and a hotel object …” and “… The response page displays to the user all air, car and hotel segments that were sold and all air, car and hotel segments that failed and were not resolved during the process … Upon confirmation of an itinerary by the user, the confirmation page is displayed (step 236) in the browser …” [0069 and 0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, transforming the search request into a first format readable by the identified supplier system; de-transforming the received first search result and the second search result into a uniform data storage scheme for viewing on the customer terminal; and generating an itinerary data structure that stores the de-transformed first and second search results in an itinerary data structure with a corresponding booking state identifier, the itinerary data structure including a plurality of segments, each of the plurality of segments corresponding to different trip components, as taught by Dombroski with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dombroski that doing so would dramatically reduce the expenditure of time and resources required in order to book business travel and to perform the booking of the travel in an effective manner, consistent with the user's preferences [0020].
Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski does not teach, receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer; wherein each of the plurality of segments includes source data identifying a particular supplier system that provided the corresponding information contained therein. However, Tilden teaches, receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer (“… In one embodiment, the itinerary messaging system 100 receives a stream of real-time status information from, e.g., airlines and/or the federal aviation administration, which the itinerary messaging system 100 associates with specific itineraries in the travel itinerary database 122” and “By accessing a traveler's itinerary 124, combined with real-time travel status information 126 (e.g., flight status information) and (in some embodiments) GPS location information, the itinerary messaging system 100 is able to target messages 132 to the traveler at a high level of specificity and relevance …” and “In another example scenario, an airport restaurant at ORD airport (Chicago O'Hare International Airport) may wish to attract customers by offering a special discount to travelers who are connecting through ORD with connection times longer than 90 minutes …” and “… An airport category 614 may be associated with delays at an airport where the traveler is departing, arriving or connecting. A traffic and/or parking category 616 may be associated with traffic and parking advisories. A promotional offer category 618 may be associated with, for example, an electronic discount coupon for all travelers connecting through a particular airport with a minimum amount of time available before their departure …” [0036 and 0480 and 0071 and 0077]);
wherein each of the plurality of segments includes source data identifying a particular supplier system that provided the corresponding information contained therein (“… In the illustrated example embodiment, the segment parameters 300 include a … travel supplier ID 320 for the segment (e.g., a particular airline carrier ID and/or flight number) …” [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving real-time data from a supplier system in response to the receiving of the search request for discounted rates based on information relating to the customer; wherein each of the plurality of segments includes source data identifying a particular supplier system that provided the corresponding information contained therein, as taught by Tilden with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Tilden that doing so would be useful to the traveler [0044].
Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden does not teach, updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received real-time data. However, Patil teaches, updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received real-time data (“… The business rules engine is preferably configured to continuously learn through artificial intelligence (“AI”), machine learning, and robotic process automation (“RPA”) to update requirements in real time and retain such information for future application purposes, so that all data is cross-referenced in real time each time a visa application is requested” [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, updating a plurality of routing rules based on the received real-time data, as taught by Patil with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of improving the flexibility and applicability of the rules.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a system instead of a method. Because Lopez Ruiz teaches a system as well as a method (see at least Lopez Ruiz [0022]), claim 8 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Lopez Ruiz, Dombroski, Tilden, and Patil to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity
Regarding claim 15, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium instead of a method. Because Lopez Ruiz teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as well as a method (see at least Lopez Ruiz [0014]), claim 8 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Lopez Ruiz, Dombroski, Tilden, and Patil to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz further teaches, wherein the user profile includes an identification of customer loyalties and a plurality of customer preferences (“… The user profile engine 72 may centralize user profile and travel preference data, thereby enabling search results to be tailored to the specific user requesting the search. By way of example, the user profile engine 72 may provide user data indicating whether the user prefers a particular hotel chain, or participates in a particular frequent flyer rewards program. Search queries and/or search results may be adjusted based on this user preference data …” [0036]).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz further teaches, wherein the plurality of routing rules includes a strength of supplier rule that routes the request based on prices offered by the plurality of supplier systems or availability of inventory at the plurality of supplier systems (“… The third party provider database 56 may be searchable based on the characteristics of the travel offerings stored therein. These characteristics may include data describing the travel offering, such as the type of travel product, travel product availability, travel product price, destination and origination cities, flight times and dates, hotel star rating, location, or any other characteristic of the travel offering …” [0034-0035]).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz further teaches, wherein the plurality of routing rules includes a customer profile rule that routes the request based on customer preferences, customer loyalty, or customer spend level (“… By way of example, the user profile engine 72 may provide user data indicating whether the user prefers a particular hotel chain, or participates in a particular frequent flyer rewards program. Search queries and/or search results may be adjusted based on this user preference data …” [0036]).
As to claims 7 and 14, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz does not teach, updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation. However, Dombroski teaches, updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation (“… Upon confirmation of an itinerary by the user, the confirmation page is displayed (step 236) in the browser. FIG. 12 represents a screen capture of a confirmation page displayed by the presently preferred embodiment of the invention. Referring again to FIG. 5, the itinerary data included in the confirmation is parsed into the itinerary object by the booking engine translator (step 240) …” [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation, as taught by Dombroski with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dombroski that doing so would dramatically reduce the expenditure of time and resources required in order to book business travel and to perform the booking of the travel in an effective manner, consistent with the user's preferences [0020].
As to claim 20, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz does not teach, receiving a booking confirmation from the supplier; and updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation. However, Dombroski teaches, receiving a booking confirmation from the supplier; and updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation (“… Once accepted, the itinerary is booked with the GDS and the plug-in automatically generates appointment events from the itinerary and adds or replaces appointment events in the user's calendar application” and “… Upon confirmation of an itinerary by the user, the confirmation page is displayed (step 236) in the browser. FIG. 12 represents a screen capture of a confirmation page displayed by the presently preferred embodiment of the invention. Referring again to FIG. 5, the itinerary data included in the confirmation is parsed into the itinerary object by the booking engine translator (step 240) …” [0016 and 0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving a booking confirmation from the supplier; and updating the booking state identifier of the itinerary data structure to indicate the booking confirmation, as taught by Dombroski with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dombroski that doing so would dramatically reduce the expenditure of time and resources required in order to book business travel and to perform the booking of the travel in an effective manner, consistent with the user's preferences [0020].
As to claim 21, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz further teaches, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes an identifier corresponding to a booking and/or search result (“… Key attributes may include a unique identifier or a price of a travel product included in the travel offering. Exemplary key attributes may include a flight number and ticket price for a flight between an origination and destination city pair” [0045-0050]).
As to claim 22, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz further teaches, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a type corresponding a travel component (“… These characteristics may include data describing the travel offering, such as the type of travel product …” [035]).
As to claim 24, Lopez Ruiz in view of Dombroski in view of Tilden in view of Patil teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lopez Ruiz does not teach, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a booking state that indicates a status corresponding to data organized in the itinerary data structure. However, Dombroski teaches, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a booking state that indicates a status corresponding to data organized in the itinerary data structure (“… This file contains the information include in a suggested itinerary for the traveler. The travel request processor 74 creates response page (step 226) and sends the response page to the booking engine browser (step 228). The response page displays to the user all air, car and hotel segments that were sold and all air, car and hotel segments that failed and were not resolved during the process …” [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein each segment of the plurality of segments includes a booking state that indicates a status corresponding to data organized in the itinerary data structure, as taught by Dombroski with the travel planning method and system of Lopez Ruiz. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dombroski that doing so would dramatically reduce the expenditure of time and resources required in order to book business travel and to perform the booking of the travel in an effective manner, consistent with the user's preferences [0020].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights