Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 06/11/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 10/10/2025, amended Claims 1, 16, and 19-20. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/10/2023, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-19, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 11-14, Applicant summarizes the status of the claims and applicable guidance and law. Examiner does not materially disagree.
On Pages 14-15, Applicant argues “Here, the present application is generally directed to improving upon a conventional traveler tracking system and method for providing more accurate vehicle management and more efficient vehicle assignment. Specifically, the present application noted that traditional travel booking systems were unable to accurately distinguish between true final destinations and connecting points in trip itineraries, leading to incorrect traveler tracking and inaccurate vehicle capacity management (e.g., accurate indication of seat assignments and availability), and thus providing less efficient vehicle assignments for various trip segments (e.g., assignment of a larger than necessary vehicles with unutilized seats resulting in unnecessary fuel waste based on the inefficient vehicle assignment). In view of the above noted technological problem associated with conventional traveler tracking and vehicle management systems, aspects of the present disclosure provide a novel and unique way to determine true destinations in ticketed trips using time-on-ground (TOG) data at connecting airports to differentiate between genuine stopovers versus connections. Based on the determined true destinations, present disclosure further provides generating new origin and destination (OND) segments, and determining and providing true capacity availability of each of the available vehicles for the OND segments to allow for a more accurate and efficient vehicle assignments. Accordingly, based on the above noted technical features of amended claim 1, the above noted technological problem associated with conventional traveler tracking and vehicle management systems is resolved to provide a practical application of technology.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a).II (“IMPROVEMNTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD” states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
MPEP 2106.04.I states “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.”
Examiner responds that a “true” destination is a predicted customer behavior, which is a part of the recited abstract idea under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.B (“Commercial of Legal Interactions”). The advantages of better provided a service (i.e. assignment of vehicles) based on better predicting customer behavior (i.e. “true” capacity) is an improvement in the abstract idea itself, and therefore cannot provide patent eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Put plainly, the claims are directed to an improved business practice. Although better business decisions can result a real-world gains, e.g. reduced fuel consumption or more efficient use of machinery, Applicant’s claims remain directed to the improved business practice, not an improvement in technology. Features such as differentiating between genuine stopover vs connection and generating a new OND segment, are business advantages that address business problems, not “technical” solutions to a “technical” problem. Therefore, the claims do not provide a patent eligible improvement to technology.
On Pages 15-16, Applicant argues for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner does not agree. In light of the response above, and explanation in the rejection section below, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 remain.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the step of “generating, by the processor, at least one stopover code based on attributes of the ticketed trip. . . grouping, by the processor, the plurality of segments based on the at least one stopover code . . .” at the fifth and sixth paragraphs. MPEP 2111.01.I states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Specification ¶77 shows “In this regard, the data driven framework establishes a methodology to distinguish a stopover and a layover for one or more connecting points included in the respective trip. In an example, a stopover may refer to an extended layover, which may be defined differently for domestic trips and international trips. Based on such distinctions, components of a trip may be separated into different groups (e.g., valid segments or portions of the trip, and invalid or arrival unknown (ARUNK) segments or portions of the trip), and percentage of a trip may be allocated according to such groupings.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “stopover code” is limited to a “code” that indicates a “stopover.” A “stopover” is a known term in the art (see Wichter, Miller, Going, Gaggero, Patton, Guillard) that references a layover that is a destination (or intermediate destination) of the travel, distinguished from a normal layover which is merely an intermediate travel point, solely in service of traveling to a destination other than the layover location. Thus, the “stopover code” in the limitation of “generating, by the processor, at least one stopover code based on attributes of the ticketed trip. . . grouping, by the processor, the plurality of segments based on the at least one stopover code . . .” functions as a classification or categorization of the segments, grouping the segments based on the “stopover code” (e.g. creating a group of “stopover” segments and normal segments).
As is ordinary and customary in the art, a “stopover” can be defined by duration of layover (consistent with specification Paragraphs 85-88) and can have different pricing than a normal layover (see Wichter, Miller, Going, Gaggero, Patton, Guillard). Thus, the “stopover” indicated by the claimed “stopover code” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning of a “stopover” known in the art per MPEP 2111.01.I.
The scope of dependent Claims 2-18 and similar independent Claims 19-20 follows the claim interpretation of Claim 1 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Overview of Analysis
The subject matter eligibility analysis comprises: Step 1 (i.e. Does the claim fall within one of the four stator categories, e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?), Step 2A (Is the claim “directed to” a judicial exception, e.g. abstract idea, natural phenomena, or law of nature?), and Step 2B (i.e. Does the claim recite “additional elements” that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception?). MPEP 2106.III.
Step 2A is a two-prong analysis. MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A Prong-One first determines whether the claim merely “recites” (i.e. “sets forth” or “describes”) a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1. Then, Step 2A Prong-Two determines if the claim “recites” “additional elements” that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (e.g. if the recited additional elements do not “integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application,” then, Step 2A would conclude that the claim is “directed to” the recited judicial exception.). MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2.
Step 1
Claims 1-18 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claim 19 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claim 20 recite a method (i.e. a process). Therefore, Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of “A method for determining a true destination on a ticketed trip and updating a true vehicle capacity for one or more segments of the ticketed trip, the method comprising:
obtaining, . . . , raw data corresponding to the ticketed trip from one or more sources;
parsing, . . . , the raw data and deriving a plurality of segments making up the ticketed trip, each of the plurality of segments including an origin and a destination, and at least one connection point is present between the plurality of segments;
generating, . . . , at least one stopover code based on attributes of the ticketed trip, the attributes including at least time-on-ground (TOG), domestic trip indicator, international trip indicator, and geographic location of an airport included in the plurality of segments;
grouping, . . . , the plurality of segments based on the at least one stopover code;
creating, . . . , a trip type for the ticketed trip based on the grouping;
performing, . . . , a proration of the grouped segments of the ticketed trip;
dividing and distributing, . . . , a fare for the ticketed trip according to the performed proration for the grouped segments of the ticketed trip;
identifying and storing, . . . , a true destination based on the grouping and the proration performed, wherein the true destination does not match with a destination indicated in the ticketed trip;
generating, . . . , at least one new origin and destination (OND) segment based on the true destination of the ticketed trip;
determining and updating, . . . and for each of a plurality of vehicles, a true capacity availability of a vehicle for the at least one OND segment
displaying, . . . , the true capacity availability of the vehicle that differs from capacity availability of the vehicle indicated by the ticketed trip for performing a more accurate vehicle assignment.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining data corresponding to ticketed trips, (2) parsing data and deriving segments and connection points of the trip, (3) generating a “stopover code” based on attributes of the ticketed trip, (4) grouping segments based on the stopover code, (5) creating a trip type based on the grouping, (6) performing a proration of grouped segments, (7) dividing and distributing fare for the ticketed trip according to the proration, (8) identifying and storing a “true” destination different from the ticketed destination based on the grouping and proration, (9) generating a new OND segment based on the “true” destination, (10) determining and updated “true” capacity of each vehicle for the OND segment, (11) displaying “true” capacity, which differs from ticketed capacity for better assignment, all of which are: mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations (i.e. prorating segments), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. analyzing trip data to identify stopovers, prorating segments, determining and updating “true” destinations and capacities, generating new OND pairs, and displaying availability for more accurate vehicle assignment “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “processor,” “memory,” and “display”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical calculations,” and “commercial or legal interactions,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) processor,
(ii) memory, and
(iii) display.
The additional elements of (i) processor (Fig. 1 and ¶37 shows “processor 104.”), (ii) memory (Fig 1 and ¶38 shows “computer memory 106.”), and (iii) display (Fig. 1 and ¶39 shows “computer display 108.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) processor, (ii) memory, and (iii) display, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) processor, (ii) memory, and (iii) display, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-18 recite the abstract idea of:
. . . wherein the proration is a segment based proration. (Claim 2)
. . . wherein the segment based proration is performed by: assigning equal percentage to each of the plurality of segments; and applying a sum of the percentages to one or more segments among the plurality of segments that are included between the origin and the true destination. (Claim 3)
. . . wherein the proration is a mileage based proration. (Claim 4)
. . . wherein the milage based proration is performed by: calculating mileage between an origin and destination of each of the plurality of segments; adding miles of all of the plurality of segments to obtain total mileage for the ticketed trip; dividing mileage of each of the plurality of segments by the total mileage to obtain a percentage of the ticketed trip for each of the plurality of segments; and assigning zero percentage of the ticketed trip for an arrival unknown (ARUNK) segment. (Claim 5)
. . . wherein the proration is a fare calculation based proration. (Claim 6)
. . . wherein the fare calculation base proration is performed by: cleaning fare calculation data and deleting duplicates; stitching a plurality of rows of the cleaned fare calculation data to create one or more single strings of characters; searching for patterns including numbers with a decimal value; assigning a sequence number for each of the patterns found based on its respective position, wherein the sequence number assigned is used as a segment number for performing a match; obtaining three alpha characters preceding the patterns, wherein the three alpha characters corresponding to a city code or airport code of a segment; performing a match between the obtained three alpha characters and a segment number corresponding to a segment included in the plurality of segments; and for each of the city code or airport code, associating the city code or the airport code with a corresponding decimal value, and dividing the respective decimal value by a sum of all decimal values for determining a percentage of the segment with respect to the ticketed trip. (Claim 7)
. . . wherein the at least one stopover code is generated when the ticketed trip is a domestic trip and TOG is determined to be higher than a reference threshold. (Claim 8)
. . . wherein the reference threshold is 8 hours for the domestic trip. (Claim 9)
. . . wherein the at least one stopover code is generated when the ticketed trip is an international trip and TOG is determined to be higher than a reference threshold. (Claim 10)
. . . wherein the reference threshold is 18 hours for the international trip. (Claim 11)
. . . wherein the geographic location is a country. (Claim 12)
. . . wherein the geographic location is a continent. (Claim 13)
. . . wherein the true destination corresponds to a connecting airport that has the TOG above a reference threshold value for a domestic trip. (Claim 14)
. . . wherein the true destination corresponds to a connecting airport that has the TOG above a reference threshold value for an international trip. (Claim 15)
. . . wherein, when the TOG at a connecting airport is above a reference threshold, generating a new OND segment for a portion of the ticketed trip that indicates the true destination as the respective connecting airport, and identifying remaining portions of the ticked trip as at least one [[an]] ARUNK segment with the respective connecting airport being indicated as an origin. (Claim 16)
. . . wherein, when all of a segment based proration, a mileage based proration and a fare calculation based proration are available for the proration, selecting the fare calculation based proration first, the mileage based proration second and then the segment based proration last based on priority. (Claim 17)
. . . wherein the proration determined by the fare calculation based proration is below another reference threshold value, reperforming proration using the mileage based proration. (Claim 18)
Dependent Claims 2-18, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-18 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) limiting the proration calculation to certain operations and variables, (2) applying a reference threshold to the TOG in order to generate the stopover code, and (3) limiting the geographic location and “true” destination to certain locations, which merely limit the abstract idea itself. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-18 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-18, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-18 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-18 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-18 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1 (i.e. Claim 1 recites a method embodied by the elements and limitations of Claim 19). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of “A method for determining a true fare for a ticketed trip, the method comprising:
obtaining, . . . , raw data corresponding to the ticketed trip from one or more sources;
parsing, . . . , the raw data and deriving a plurality of segments making up the ticketed trip, each of the plurality of segments including an origin and a destination, and at least one connection point is present between the plurality of segments;
generating, . . . , at least one stopover code based on attributes of the ticketed trip, the attributes including at least time-on-ground (TOG), domestic trip indicator, international trip indicator, and geographic location of an airport included in the plurality of segments;
grouping, . . . , the plurality of segments based on the at least one stopover code;
creating, . . . , a trip type for the ticketed trip based on the grouping;
performing, . . . , a proration of the grouped segments of the ticketed trip; [[and]]
dividing and distributing, . . . , a fare for the ticketed trip according to the performed proration for the grouped segments of the ticketed trip[[,]];
identifying and storing a true destination based on the grouping and the proration performed, wherein the true destination does not match with a destination indicated in the ticketed trip;
generating, . . . , at least one new origin and destination (OND) segment based on the true destination of the ticketed trip;
determining and updating, for each of a plurality of vehicles, a true capacity availability of a vehicle for the at least one OND segment based on the true destination of the ticked trip; and
displaying, . . . , the true capacity availability of the vehicle that differs from capacity availability of the vehicle indicated by the ticketed trip for performing a more accurate vehicle assignment,
wherein the proration is performed by:
cleaning fare calculation data and deleting duplicates;
stitching a plurality of rows of the cleaned fare calculation data to create one or more single strings of characters;
searching for patterns including numbers with a decimal value;
assigning a sequence number for each of the patterns found based on its respective position, wherein the sequence number assigned is used as a segment number for performing a match;
obtaining three alpha characters preceding the patterns, wherein the three alpha characters corresponding to a city code or airport code of a segment;
performing a match between the obtained three alpha characters and a segment number corresponding to a segment included in the plurality of segments; and
for each of the city code or airport code, associating the city code or the airport code with a corresponding decimal value, and dividing the respective decimal value by a sum of all decimal values for determining a percentage of the segment with respect to the ticketed trip.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining data corresponding to ticketed trips, (2) parsing data and deriving segments and connection points of the trip, (3) generating a “stopover code” based on attributes of the ticketed trip, (4) grouping segments based on the stopover code, (5) creating a trip type based on the grouping, (6) performing a proration of grouped segments, (7) dividing and distributing fare for the ticketed trip according to the proration, (8) the proration is performed by (8a) cleaning data and deleting duplicates, (8b) stitching rows of data to create strings of characters, (8c) searching for patterns including numbers, (8d) assigning a sequence number for each pattern, (8e) using the sequence number as a segment number for performing a match, (8f) obtaining three character city/airport code preceding the patterns, (8g) performing a match between the three character code and segment number, (8h) associating code with corresponding decimal value, and (8i) dividing the decimal value by sum of values to determine percentage of segment, (9) identifying and storing a “true” destination different from the ticketed destination based on the grouping and proration, (10) generating a new OND segment based on the “true” destination, (11) determining and updated “true” capacity of each vehicle for the OND segment, (12) displaying “true” capacity, which differs from ticketed capacity for better assignment, all of which are: mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations (i.e. prorating segments), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. analyzing trip data to identify stopovers, prorating segments, determining and updating “true” destinations and capacities, generating new OND pairs, and displaying availability for more accurate vehicle assignment “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “processor”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical calculations,” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) processor and
(ii) display.
The additional elements of (i) processor (Fig. 1 and ¶37 shows “processor 104.”) and (iii) display (Fig. 1 and ¶39 shows “computer display 108.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) processor and (ii) display, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) processor and (ii) display, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Reasons for No Art Rejection
Claims 1-20 are not rejected over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is:
“What is a layover? How it differs from a stopover, more flight term meanings explained” (“Wichter” 03/19/2023 USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2023/03/19/layover-stopover-airline-flight-terms-explained/11470606002/),
“What Are Layover, Stopover and Open-Jaw Flights?” (“Miller” 01/11/2024, Nerd Wallet, https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/what-are-layover-stopover-and-open-jaw-flights),
“What is a Stopover?” (“Going” 01/09/2024, https://www.going.com/glossary/stopover),
“The determinants of hidden-city ticketing: Competition, hub-and-spoke networks, and advance-purchase requirements” (“Gaggero” Transportation Research Part E 173, May 2023, 103086, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103086 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554523000741?via%3Dihub),
US-7103558-B1 (“Patton”),
US-20150242959-A1 ("Canis"),
US-6023679-A (“Acebo”),
US-5270921-A (“Hornick”),
US-20200272954-A1 (“Serra”),
US-20080167886-A1 (“Marcken-886”),
US-20080167909-A1 (“Marcken-909”),
US-20130117057-A1 (“Moltke”),
US-20160086101-A1 (“Howe-101”),
US-20160086182-A1 (“Howe-182”),
US-20090106170-A1 (“Thurlow”),
AU-2016219604-A1 (“Callaway”),
JP-7177695-B2 (“Ohno”), and
EP-3046055-A1 (“Guillard”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejection:
Wichter discloses, on Page 1, “According to Loulu Lima, founder of the Texas-based travel agency Book Here Give Here, layovers are typically just a few hours and designed to give you some breathing room while changing planes, but stopovers are longer, sometimes days-long pauses between flights to give you a chance to explore an extra destination as part of your trip.” Wichter further discloses, on Pages 1-2, “‘A stopover is a legal stop (to) your trip,’ Lima said. ‘I'll use Icelandair as an example ... They have the ability for you to say, make a stop in Iceland for a couple of days before you move onto another destination.’ Lima added that with official layovers and stopovers, passengers typically have some level of protection if something goes wrong. For example, if the first flight on your itinerary is delayed or canceled and you miss the connection, airlines will have to reaccommodate you. However, she said, travelers sometimes create their own layovers or stopovers by buying tickets on different airlines or buying flights separately even on the same carrier, but on unlinked reservations. In those cases, she said, you can be on your own if something goes wrong. ‘If one of those legs is not on the same ticket and something happens to my flight and I miss the other one, I'm not protected,’ Lima said. ‘You're truly at the mercy of the airlines.’” (Emphasis added). Thus, Wichter teaches a material distinction between a “stopover” and a mere “layover,” as the transportation obligation of the airline associated with the travel ticket differs for “stopover” itineraries and non-stopover itineraries.
Miller discloses, on Page 3, that “[r]ules about when stopovers are allowed varies by airline,” such that stopovers may only be permitted for certain types of tickets. Thus, Miller teaches that Airlines (i.e. ticket issuers) have different business policies associated with stopover itineraries and normal layover itineraries.
Going discloses, on Page 2, that (1) airlines like Icelandair, TAP Portugal, Turkish Airlines, Etihad offer free stopovers, and (2) airlines like Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Singapore Airlines offer stopover programs that aren’t free, but offers discounts to hotels and other services. Thus, Going teaches that Airlines (i.e. ticket issuers) have different business policies associated with stopover itineraries and normal layover itineraries. For example, an airline that charges extra for a stopover would likely want to ensure that passengers with travel itineraries that include a stopover pay the additional fee.
Gaggero discloses, in Section 1 on Page 1, an air-travel pricing phenomenon known as “Hidden-city ticketing (HCT).” HCT occurs when an airline ticket from City A to City B is more expensive than an airline ticket from City A to City C that connects through City B. Therefore, passengers are incentivized to purchase the cheaper ticket (i.e. City A to City C) and leave the airport at City B (i.e. skipping the second flight from City B to City C). Thus, the HCT ticket of Gaggero teaches “[a] true destination [that] does not match with a destination indicated in the ticketed trip.”
Gaggero discloses, in Section 1 on Page 2, “[M]ost airlines prohibit HCT in their contract of carriage (e.g., American, Delta, and United explicitly state that a passenger must complete all segments of a purchased ticket). As a result, passengers engaging in HCT may suffer retaliatory consequences including receiving a lifetime ban from the airline or having their frequent flyer membership revoked.” Section 4.3 on Pages 15-17 shows that the practice of HCT travel creates substantial financial loss for the airlines. Specifically, Section 5 on Page 17 shows “As internet search engines become more sophisticated, they are increasingly helping consumers quickly identify HCT opportunities. However, HCT is clearly detrimental to airline operations and profits. In addition to the revenue loss that results from lower fares paid by HCT passengers, HCT may also delay the departure of the B–C flight if the airline waits in vain for HCT passengers (Skorupski and Wierzbińska, 2015). There is also an opportunity cost associated with reserving a seat on the B-C flight for a HCT passenger when that seat could instead be sold to another customer.” (Emphasis added). Section 5 on Page 17 further suggest airlines adjust pricing to reduce risk of HCT (before issuing a ticket) based on identifying routes susceptible to an HCT purchase, noting that completely eliminating HCT may be impractical.
Patton discloses, at C01L18-45, “1. Field of the Invention[.] The present invention relates to a system and method in the travel industry. In particular, this invention relates to a system and method for determining one or more origin and destination (O&D) services for an itinerary by applying a multi-level test to the itinerary. 2. Description of the Prior Art[.] Trip analysis became important to travel managers as airlines set up hub-and-spoke route networks in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Since that time, travel reporting systems have used a variety of methods to derive O&D. Some systems use ‘stopover indicators’ on an airline ticket. These indicators (an ‘X’ for a connection and an ‘O’ for a stopover) are a ticket-pricing byproduct. While useful as an ingredient of an O&D determination, stopover indicators by themselves cannot produce accurate O&D. Other systems use ‘fare break points’ on an airline ticket. Akin to stopover indicators, fare break points are the points in an itinerary that are explicitly priced. These do not always accurately indicate O&D. Other systems use the time spent at a location. Some reporting systems use a minimum specified amount of time, e.g., four hours, to indicate a stopover. Some systems use one minimum for ‘domestic’ travel and a different minimum for ‘international’ travel. While consideration of time spent at a location is a key indication of O&D, time alone is a less accurate indicator of O&D. A more accurate O&D determination system is needed.” The determination of one or more “O&D” for an itinerary teaches identifying a “true destination” of the “ticketed trip,” “wherein the true destination does not match with a destination indicated in the ticketed trip.”
Patton discloses, at C04L11-16, “Itinerary data such as the segments, departure times, and arrival times is derived from the itinerary 206 and input into a processor 202. After applying the multi-level test to the derived itinerary data, the O&D services are output and made available to a user or a calling program.” Thus, Patton teaches “obtaining” “raw data” (i.e. itinerary 206) and “parsing” the raw data to “deriv[e] a plurality of segments.” See also Fig. 1 step 102 “read itinerary.”
Patton discloses, in Fig. 1, C04L60-C05L21, and C09L03-42, using a “Level 1” test in Table 1 to first group segments into O&D services. The test includes determining if (1) the current segment is the final segment of the itinerary, (2) the relationship between the current destination and next origin is “Surface” and “non-conterminous,” and (3) the next destination is the same as current origin (i.e. round trip), inorder to break up the itinerary into O&D services (i.e. adding stopovers).
Patton Fig. 1, C05L03-61, and C12L45-60, shows applying “level 2” tests to determine if a “service termination flag (STF)” (i.e. connecting location) should be classified as a “[service] termination point (STP)” (i.e. stopover) or “connection point (CP)” (i.e. layover). C10L01-C12L44 shows Table 2 containing the “Level 2 Tests,” including test “T11,” which determines if the amount of time spent at the current destination exceeds a threshold (see C13L06-C15L30 showing Table 3 used to classify the destination as a termination point based on “T11” and C15L57-C16L10 showing application of test “T11”).Patton further discloses, in Fig. 3A-3B and C05L62-C06L57, that “after the O&D analysis” the cost of each O&D service is apportioned based on the fraction of service (i.e. proration).
Although the scope and purpose of Patton is very similar to the instant claims, Patton teaches identifying the “true destination based on the grouping” and then performing the proration based on the true destinations, and therefore does not teach “identifying . . . a true destination based on the grouping and the proration performed.” Additionally, Patton does not teach determining, updating, and displaying a “true capacity availability of the vehicle that differs from capacity availability of the vehicle indicated by the ticketed trip.” In Patton the ARNK are applied in “level 1” before the “level 2” analysis.
Canis abstract, Fig. 3, ¶¶33-35, and ¶¶38-41 discloses an audit of ticketed itineraries which can include a plurality of segments. ¶¶32 shows the segments are grouped into “priceable units,” which are the simplest combination of segments that can be ticketed and include “one way,” “round trips,” “circle trips that form a closed loop, and “open jaw.” Fig. 3, ¶¶3-5, and ¶¶42-49 shows taking the raw ticketing data in block 52, determining a set of possible priceable units for that could satisfy the itinerary in block 54, applying ticketing rules to the possible priceable units in block 56 to flag certain priceable units as “non-applicable” (i.e. those that violate a rule), determining a combination of priceable units that satisfy the itinerary in block 58, flag combinations that include “non-applicable” priceable units in block 60, determining the flagged combinations that match the ticket in block 62, and outputting an ADM (Agency Debit Memo) the explains the discrepancies in block 64. Canis does not teach updated the capacity based on flagged priceable units or combinations. Fig. 6-7 and ¶¶16-17 show that this audit can be performed when exchanging an old ticket for a new ticket or receiving a ticket refund.
Acebo Fig. 1-2 and C08L37-67 shows a system that stores post-ticketed travel reservation information including a booked travel itinerary, which can be updated. Fig. 27-28b and C14L01-C15L04 shows that the database is updated when the customer information is “modified.” However, Acebo does not teach updating the stored reservation information based on “true” destinations or capacity that result from an analysis of the post ticked data.
Hornick Abstract, Fig. 1, and C04L59-C05L03 shows “an airline seat reservation system 1” that records “reservations 10 in a database 9” and “uses a flight network database 6 to generate seat booking limits 7 and/or expected marginal seat revenues (EMSRs) 8 for input to the reservation system 1.” C05L06-10 shows “The database 6 describes a flight network comprising a plurality of flight legs a, and itinerary p and fare class i combinations. Each flight leg a has a residual seating capacity Ca, and each itinerary p and fare class i combination has a revenue yield fp i for a seat reserved therein.” (Emphasis added). Hornick Abstract shows computing prorated “virtual” fares for legs to estimate expected revenue, providing a leg-based method of optimizing revenue. Hornick C07L49-55 shows that the booking limit is constrained based on the residual capacity resulting directly from the recorded reservations. Therefore, Hornick does not teach identification of a “true” capacity.
Serra ¶¶13-15 shows assigning riders on a “computer vehicle (CV)” using a capacity of the CV based on forecasting unknown “late rider (LR)” itineraries (i.e. as opposed to “early rider (ER)” reserved itineraries). Fig. 4 and ¶¶78-79 shows computing an optimal schedule and assigning commuter vehicles with consideration of the “Forecast Late Rider (FLR).” The use of the FLR effectively teaches a determination of a “true capacity” (i.e. different from the reserved capacity), however, Serra does not explicitly teach that the FLR value could be a negative value (i.e. actual riders is less than ER).
Marcken-886 Fig. 3 and ¶69 shows that in response to a flight query, the system retrieves availability of flights, which may utilize an availability predicting system. See also ¶¶64-77. Specifically, ¶¶95-97 shows “[0095] D. Determining Seat, Fare, and Flight Availability [0096] To keep up with changes in seat availability, the availability merger 46 poses a high rate of seat availability queries compared to the rate at which travel queries are posed for schedules and prices since flight and fare data change at a lower rate than seat availability. Typically, the seat availability queries are made to seat availability predictors or in some circumstances to airline revenue management systems. These seat availability queries are used to determine whether a seat will be made available for a flight or a set of flights, generally coupled with a fare usable with the flight or sets of flights. While, a TPS, such as TPS 12, can determine a set of flights useable with a fare, generally a ticket cannot be booked unless an airline's revenue management system or seat availability system makes a seat available. [0097] That is, each fare has associated rules that restrict what flights the fare can be used with. However those rules are not the only consideration. The airline revenue management/seat availability system indicates that inventory will be made available for the combination. Generally fare rules do not change nearly as rapidly as responses from an airline's revenue management/seat availability system. Additionally, fare rule evaluations are more computationally intensive than seat availability checks, so in some circumstances it is desirable to have a TPS to construct fare/flight combinations ignoring seat availability and determine seat availability in a subsequent process.” (Emphasis added). ¶¶101-02 generally discusses the techniques for predicting availability. However, Marcken-886 does not discuss updating predicted availability based on identifying stopovers by analyzing ticketed itineraries.
Marcken-909 discloses concepts similar to Marcken-886.
Moltke Fig. 3-5 and ¶¶47-49 receiving a cancelation notification and providing an updated itinerary with updated pricing. However, as outlined in ¶6, the cancelation is, for example, from events such as airport closing or weather conditions, and does not teach using a stopover analysis to create a cancellation or update to the itinerary by identifying stopovers.
Howe-101 Fig. 2-3, ¶¶52-53, and ¶¶70-71 shows that transaction data including a travel itinerary (i.e. airline flight) is received at step 3010 and the transaction data is “parse[d]” by “travel addenda analyzer 2112” at step 3020. ¶60 shows “Travel addenda analyzer 2112 is configured to extract and analyze payment addenda information from transaction data. When travel itinerary information is embedded within payment addenda, the travel addenda analyzer 2112 extracts the itinerary information.” However, Howe-101 uses the extracted/analyzed data to offer additional services to the passenger.
Howe-182 discloses concepts similar to Howe-101.
Thurlow ¶¶1-10 shows an auditing process that can occur during a ticketing transaction. ¶26 shows “The fare verification process is driven by a request from a customer who wishes to have a verification of a travel itinerary. Additionally, it can be used to verify that a ticket that has been reissued has the correct reissue price.” ¶¶27-30 shows that this audit checks the itinerary, adjoining fare, and “fare basis code” (i.e. signifying a particular type of fare) against “rules and restrictions,” that relate to what the fare should be. ¶25 and ¶55 shows that the rules include “Minimum Stay,” “Maximum Stay,” “Stopover,” “Transfer,” and “Combinability.” However, Thurlow does not teach the specifics of the rules. Additionally, in accordance with Fig. 1-4 and ¶¶27-30, Thurlow results in merely an output of a message of the failed audit, and does not explicitly teach subsequent determinations of “true destination” or “true capacity,” as the purpose of Thurlow is to audit the “fare” charged for the ticket, not the possible actual capacity of the aircraft.
Callaway discloses concepts similar to Thurlow.
Ohno Pages 3-4 shows apportioning a route price based on the “unit price category” (e.g. “Exclusive flight," "Special flight," or “other”) and a “relay point” identified by a “relay point code and . . . relay point name.” Page 8 shows “[3. Summary of this embodiment] Thus, according to the route relay point-by-route sales amount calculation device 100 according to the present embodiment, it is possible to calculate the sales amount for each delivery route or relay point. Moreover, according to the sales amount calculation apparatus 100 for each route relay point according to the present embodiment, for example, it is also possible to calculate the sales amount foreach department. Then, according to the sales amount calculation device 100 for each route relay point according to the present embodiment, for example, the route connection master can By setting the proportional division ratio of 106d, it is possible to calculate the sales amount according to the engagement ratio of the actual working hours.”
Guillard Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶16-18 shows retrieving ticket records representative of a ticketed journey, which includes a list of travel segments in Block 252, analyzing each ticket record to determine “origin and destination (O&D) pairs based on the travel segments included in the ticket record” in Block 254, calculating a price fore the O&D pair based on the ticket price and distance traveled in Block 256, generating demand/cancel models “[b]ased on the determined O&D pairs and the price for each O&D pair” in Block 258, and simulating demand/cancellation requests using the models in Block 260.
Guillard Fig. 5 and ¶¶19-22 describes how the invention determines the O&D pairs by starting with candidate pairs, filtering the candidate pairs, and determining the type of trip (i.e. round trip). However, ¶19 states “In general, a ticket record may include a stopover code that indicates whether a stop between two travel segments for a connection. Therefore, the data processing system 100 may analyze the stopover codes for travel segments to determine whether travel segments correspond to a common O&D pair or whether travel segments correspond to different O&D pairs.” Therefore, although Guillard utilizes a “stopover code,” Guillard does not teach “generating, . . . , at least one stopover code based on attributes of the ticketed trip, the attributes including at least time-on-ground (TOG), domestic trip indicator, international trip indicator, and geographic location of an airport included in the plurality of segments” because Guillard teaches using the “stopover code” already in the ticketed data.
Guillard Fig. 6 and ¶23 shows that the price for the O&D is a fraction of the ticketed price “weighted based at least in part on the geographical distance of the O&D pair” (i.e. teaching “performing, by the processor, a proration of the grouped segments of the ticketed trip; dividing and distributing, by the processor, a fare for the ticketed trip according to the performed proration for the grouped segments of the ticketed trip”).
Fig. 7A and ¶¶24-26 shows that the models aggregates the ticketed data for a certain O&D pair in order to create a price distribution for that O&D pair. Fig. 22 and ¶¶65-68 shows simulating demand and cancel requests using the models to output a predicted number of bookings and cancelations. However, Guillard does not teach “determining and updating, by the processor, a true capacity availability of a vehicle in on at least one of the plurality of segments based on the true destination of the ticked trip” because Guillard differs in two material ways. First, the demand/cancelation output of the model is categorically separate from the ticketed data (i.e. does not teach “updating . . . a true capacity availability of a vehicle”). Second, Guillard aggregates the O&D pair data in simulating the models, and therefore would not be able to determine a single true capacity based on a single true destination of a ticketed trip.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches either (1) the functionality of a “stopover” (Wichter, Miller, Going, Gaggero, Patton, and Guillard), (2) analyzing ticketed data (Patton, Canis, Acebo, Howe-101, Howe-182), (3) identifying stopovers from an itinerary (Patton, Canis, Thurlow, Callaway, Ohno), (4) updating ticketed data or determining capacity (Acebo, Hornick, Serra, and Moltke), and (5) prorating fares (Marcken-886, Marcken-909, Ohno, and Guillard).
With respect to independent Claims 1, 19, and 20, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements. Specifically, the prior art does not teach “identifying and storing, by the processor and into a memory, a true destination based on the grouping and the proration performed, wherein the true destination does not match with a destination indicated in the ticketed trip; . . . determining and updating, by the processor and for each of a plurality of vehicles, a true capacity availability of a vehicle for the at least one OND segment based on the true destination of the ticked trip [that differs from capacity availability of the vehicle indicated by the ticketed trip]” in representative Claim 1. Examiner notes that the identification of the problem in Wichter and Gaggero, and the similar analyses in Pattton and Guillard, without the claimed solution, further supports Examiner’s determination of novelty and non-obviousness.
Dependent Claims 2-18 depend on Claim 1, and therefore are also not rejected via dependency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights