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
Applicant’s submission filed 6/12/24 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/12/24 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: For example, paragraph 052 recites storing a computer-readable program code remotely, transmitting the code via microwave, infrared, free-space optical media, etc..).
Applicant is required to review the specification for additional new matter and cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The method according to claim,”. It is unclear which claim is being referred to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims disclose the abstract idea of centrally updating prices and availability of travel-related goods and services such as hotel rooms, flights, train reservations, bus reservations, ship and/or ferry reservations, car rentals and the like.
STEP 1
Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claims are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The answer is YES.
STEP 2A. Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
“-receiving object changes that impact one or more of two given attributes of an electronic provider object;
- placing the object changes in a first queue;
- merging a plurality of object changes from the first queue by change category;
-for each change category, determining an impact of the merged object changes on a set of data pairs of a general database external to the centralized inventory system, each data pair being formed by the two given attributes;
-placing each impacted data pair in a second queue
-determining, for each impacted data pair, an update of one or more of the two given attributes over a second predetermined period via a query to the general database;
-comparing a hash value of the update of a data pair with a hash value of a corresponding data pair previously stored in a database of the central inventory system;
- when a difference between the hash value of the update of a data pair and the hash value of a corresponding data pair is detected, one or more of:
-transmitting the data pair update to an electronic provider object inventory platform; and/or
-recording the hash value of the data pair update in the database of the centralized inventory system .”
The remaining limitations are no more than computer elements (i.e. a general database (claim 1), a computer program product executable by a processor (claim 8), a centralized electronic provider object inventory system comprising a memory) to be used as a tool to perform this abstract idea.
The recited limitations cover a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter viewed as a certain method of organizing human activity with the additional recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “receiving, placing, merging, placing, determining, comparing, transmitting, recording” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually receiving the object changes, determining a difference in the data pair and transmitting/recording the update to another user.
The practice of receiving, placing, merging, placing, determining, comparing, as well as transmitting, recording updates is a commercial or legal interaction long prevalent in our system of commerce. The claims recite the idea of performing various conceptual steps generically resulting in updating data in central system and transmitting the updated data. As determined earlier, none of these steps recites specific technological implementation details, but instead get to this result by receiving, selecting and determining data. Thus, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity
STEP 2A, Prong 2
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
The claim recites one additional element: that hash value is used to perform the comparing steps.
The hash value in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the processor at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
There is no indication that indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Independent claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-23 do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons described above, they are also ineligible.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hoteis.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,1334,115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363,115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (US 20170046803 A1), in view of Arguello et al. (US 20180012152 A1).
Re-claim 1, WANG et al. teach-- A method, performed by a centralized inventory system, for centrally updating an inventory of electronic provider objects,
(see e.g. [0035] Computer Reservation System (CRS).t [0051] In response, CRS Server 105 updates 353 the Flight PNR to reflect the current re-booked flight data.)
the method comprising:
-receiving object changes that [[may]] impact one or more of two given attributes of an electronic provider object;
(see e.g. [0047] For example, the traveler/guest may have re-booked to a different flight, the airline may have changed the departure time or the flight number, the traveler/guest may have canceled the travel altogether, or some other entity may have initiated other like changes.
[0048] CRS Server 105 retrieves 328 the current Flight PNR and sends the PNR 330 to availability-monitoring server 200. Availability-monitoring server 200 extracts current ticket data 333 for the bookings detailed in the monitor record. If the current ticket data differs from the monitor record, availability-monitoring server 200 updates 335 the monitor record to reflect the currently extracted data.)
- placing the object changes in a first queue; --
(see e.g. [0050] If potential improvements are identified, availability-monitoring server 200 communicates re-book instructions 348 to travel-agent device 110. In various embodiments, instructions 348 may be communicated via various channels, including by inserting remarks into the Flight PNR and placing the Flight PNR into a CRS queue, provided by CRS Server 105, the CRS queue being periodically monitored by travel-agent device 110 for PNRs queued by availability-monitoring server 200.
-merging a plurality of object changes from the first queue by change category;
(see e.g. [0042] In various embodiments, request 308 may be communicated via various channels, including via an application programming interface (“API”) provided by availability-monitoring server 200 or by placing the Flight PNR into a CRS queue, provided by CRS Server 105, the CRS queue being periodically monitored by availability-monitoring server 200 for PNRs queued by travel-agent device 110.
[0050] In some embodiments, availability-monitoring server 200 may select among two or more prioritized queues, depending on the urgency and/or importance of the identified potential improvements. In other embodiments, availability-monitoring server 200 may encode an “urgency” attribute into the Flight PNR before placing it into a CRS queue, such that travel-agent device 110 may be able to query the CRS queue according to “urgency” attributes to identify prioritized Flight PNRs.
[0066] More particularly, a CRS may provide several numbered queues (e.g., queue nos. 1-99) into which booking agents can place PNRs to provide those PNRs to an availability-monitoring service. The availability-monitoring service and a given booking agent may agree to use particular queues for PNRs purchased by particular entities. For example, a booking agent may use queue no. 1 for PNRs purchased by Acme, Inc.; queue no. 2 for PNRs purchased by Computer Co.; and so on. A PNR generally includes a PCC or other data identifying a booking agent (e.g., identifier 420), and subroutine 600 may have access to data identifying the queue in which the given Flight PNR was provided. Thus, in such an embodiment, subroutine 600 may consult a lookup table or other data structure to map a booking-agent/queue no. pair to an entity identifier, such as entity identifier 440.
-determining, for each impacted data pair, an update of one or more of the two given attributes over a second predetermined period via a query to the general database;
(see e.g. abstract ---During an availability-monitoring period, an up-to-date version of the itinerary record may be obtained and “fingerprinted,” for example, such fingerprints being usable to determine whether substitutions (identifying more preferable lodging or travel spaces, e.g.) have changed significantly or have already been discovered and implemented, and to take appropriate action (implementing a substitution or updating the itinerary record, e.g.) if so.)
-comparing a hash value of the update of a data pair with a hash value of a corresponding data pair previously stored in a database of the central inventory system;
(see e.g. [0055] In some embodiments, the ticket attributes that make up a macro ticket-fingerprint of a monitor record may be encoded into a form that facilitates search, comparison, and/or storage efficiency, such as a message digest or “hash” computed using a cryptographic hash function, such as MD5, MD6, SHA-0, SHA-1 SHA-2, SHA-3, or the like. (See, e.g., fingerprint hashes 445A-B, 450A-B in records 410A-B.
[0056] Using the macro ticket-fingerprint identified in block 520, routine 500 determines whether the monitor record currently being processed (extracted from the Flight PNR obtained in block 505) matches an existing monitor record in an availability-monitor database (e.g., database 260). Using monitor record 410A as an example, routine 500 queries an availability-monitor database to determine whether the availability-monitor system already has a monitor record corresponding to passenger Smith of Acme, Inc. traveling from Seattle to Orlando on Alaska Airlines on May 25. In one embodiment, this query may comprise determining whether a record in the database has a fingerprint hash that matches fingerprint hash 445A.)
- when a difference between the hash value of the update of a data pair and the hash value of a corresponding data pair is detected, one or more of: transmitting the data pair update to an electronic provider object inventory platform; and/or recording the hash value of the data pair update in the database of the centralized inventory system.
(see e.g. [0057] If in decision block 525, routine 500 determines that the monitor record currently being processed matches an existing monitor record stored in an availability-monitor database, then in block 530, routine 500 updates the existing monitor record so that its flight details (e.g., flight numbers, departure and/or arrival times, and the like) and purchase details match the data extracted from the Flight PNR obtained in block 505. Additionally, if the Flight PNR had been re-ticketed or re-booked as a result of a previously identified improvement opportunity, the current ticket price may be determined to be lower than the previous purchase price. In some embodiments, a difference in price may be recorded as realized savings and the current ticket price added to the monitor record as the baseline price for future price checks. See FIG. 13.)
[0110] In block 860, subroutine 800 notifies an agent of the potential improvements. For example, in one embodiment, subroutine 800 may insert the instruction string determined in block 855 into a remarks field of the Flight PNR associated with the given monitor record, and submit the altered Flight PNR into a CRS queue provided by the computer reservation system and monitored by a travel agent who can act on the instructions.)
WANG et al. do not teach the following limitations.
However, Arguello et al. teach -for each change category, determining an impact of the merged object changes on a set of data pairs of a general database external to the centralized inventory system, each data pair being formed by the two given attributes;
(see e.g. [0042] The processor can be configured to determine at least one impacted passenger from the passenger list based on the flight disruption type, such as a flight cancellation. In an embodiment, the processor can be configured to determine at least one impacted passenger on more than one flight, such as, for example, a list of flights matching a user's flight selection criteria.
[0024] The processor can be configured to select a flight from the list of alternate flights, determine if there is an available seat on the flight,
[0026] The processor can be further configured to determine a passenger service parameter associated with the at least one impacted passenger based at least on the flight delay. For example, an impacted passenger may experience an overnight delay due to a flight disruption if the impacted passenger is booked on an alternate flight accommodation departing the next morning. The airline may have a policy in which the airline provides certain passenger services based on a flight delay. For example, an airline may have a policy to provide a meal and/or refreshments if an impacted passenger is delayed for a period of time that exceeds a threshold, such as, for example, four hours. Similarly, an airline may have a policy to provide lodging to an impacted passenger if the impacted passenger is delayed for a period of time that exceeds a threshold, such as, for example, an overnight delay. Similarly, the airline may have policies for providing transportation, entertainment, and/or other services for delays exceeding specific thresholds. The processor can be configured to determine which, if any, passenger services will be needed for an impacted passenger based on the airline's policy and the impacted passenger's flight delay.)
[0037] As shown FIG. 1, the passenger service parameter can be a cost associated with all passenger services to be provided to impacted passengers for an entire flight. However, other passenger service parameters can similarly be displayed, such as a count of passengers needing specific passenger services, such as food, refreshments, lodging, transportation, entertainment, or other passenger service parameters.)
Note: As in WANG et al., Arguello also teach -- -merging a plurality of object changes from the first queue by change category;
(see e.g. [0042] The processor can be configured to determine at least one impacted passenger from the passenger list based on the flight disruption type, such as a flight cancellation. In an embodiment, the processor can be configured to determine at least one impacted passenger on more than one flight, such as, for example, a list of flights matching a user's flight selection criteria.
****The Examiner notes Arguello et al. teach a combination of multiple service parameters that are equivalent to the set of pairs claimed. (see e.g. seat and (meals, refreshments transportation, entertainment etc.)
Furthermore, the flight disruption type, (such as a flight cancellation or delay) is equivalent to a change category.
-placing each impacted data pair in a second queue
(see e.g. [0052] In this way, the one or more processors can determine if one or more passengers are “impacted passengers” due to the potential flight disruption. The one or more processors can create a list of impacted passengers. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify WANG et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by Arguello et al., in order to determine whether substitutions (identifying more preferable lodging or travel spaces, e.g.) have changed significantly or have already been discovered and implemented, and to take appropriate action (see e.g. abstract).
Re-claim 2, WANG et al. teach -- The method according to claim 1 wherein when a difference between the hash value of the update of a data pair and the hash value of a corresponding data pair is detected, the method comprises a step of recording an update indicator in the database of the centralized inventory system.
(see e.g. [0056] In one embodiment, this query may comprise determining whether a record in the database has a fingerprint hash that matches fingerprint hash 445A.
[0057] If in decision block 525, routine 500 determines that the monitor record currently being processed matches an existing monitor record stored in an availability-monitor database, then in block 530, routine 500 updates the existing monitor record so that its flight details (e.g., flight numbers, departure and/or arrival times, and the like) and purchase details match the data extracted from the Flight PNR obtained in block 505. )
Re-claim 3, WANG et al. teach The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:
-receiving, from a the electronic provider object inventory platform, periodically according to a third predetermined period, an update request;
- when an update flag is recorded in the database of the centralized inventory system], transmitting the update flag to the electronic provider object inventory platform.
(see e.g. [0043] Either in response to request 308 or during periodic queue monitoring, availability-monitoring server 200 sends to CRS Server 105 a request 310 for Flight PNR 305. CRS Server 105 retrieves 313 the Flight PNR and sends the PNR 315 to availability-monitoring server 200. [0089] In block 710, routine 700 requests and obtains the up-to-date or “master” version of the Flight PNR from a computerized reservation system (e.g., the system that operates CRS device 105).
[0087] FIG. 7 illustrates a routine 700 for monitoring the availability of a given monitor record, such as may be performed by availability-monitoring server 200 in some variants. In various embodiments, routine 700 may be invoked for a given monitor record according to a fixed or variable periodic schedule.
0104] In block 830, subroutine 800 requests and obtains an up-to-date availability for the given flight segment(s) and the current set of ticket attributes from a computerized reservation system (e.g., the system that operates CRS device 105).
[0048] If the current ticket data differs from the monitor record, availability-monitoring server 200 updates 335 the monitor record to reflect the currently extracted data.)
Re-claim 4, WANG et al. teach The method according to claim, wherein merging (106) a plurality of object changes from the first queue by change categories is performed periodically according to a first predetermined period.
(see e.g. [0042] In various embodiments, request 308 may be communicated via various channels, including via an application programming interface (“API”) provided by availability-monitoring server 200 or by placing the Flight PNR into a CRS queue, provided by CRS Server 105, the CRS queue being periodically monitored by availability-monitoring server 200 for PNRs queued by travel-agent device 110.
[0050] In some embodiments, availability-monitoring server 200 may select among two or more prioritized queues, depending on the urgency and/or importance of the identified potential improvements. In other embodiments, availability-monitoring server 200 may encode an “urgency” attribute into the Flight PNR before placing it into a CRS queue, such that travel-agent device 110 may be able to query the CRS queue according to “urgency” attributes to identify prioritized Flight PNRs.
[0066] More particularly, a CRS may provide several numbered queues (e.g., queue nos. 1-99) into which booking agents can place PNRs to provide those PNRs to an availability-monitoring service. The availability-monitoring service and a given booking agent may agree to use particular queues for PNRs purchased by particular entities. For example, a booking agent may use queue no. 1 for PNRs purchased by Acme, Inc.; queue no. 2 for PNRs purchased by Computer Co.; and so on. A PNR generally includes a PCC or other data identifying a booking agent (e.g., identifier 420), and subroutine 600 may have access to data identifying the queue in which the given Flight PNR was provided. Thus, in such an embodiment, subroutine 600 may consult a lookup table or other data structure to map a booking-agent/queue no. pair to an entity identifier, such as entity identifier 440.)
Re-claims 5, 6, WANG et al. do not explicitly teach -the method of claim 4, wherein the first predetermined period is between 8 and 12 seconds. -A method according to claim 1, wherein the second predetermined period is between 15 days and 45 days.
However, it is considered an obvious variation of WANG et al. since the agent gathers flight PNRs encoded with an “urgency” attribute and places them into a CRS queue periodically -see e.g. [0050,0052]. Therefore, WANG et al. anticipates specific period of time and no unpredictable results are foreseen.
Re-claim 7, WANG et al., in view of Arguello et al. teach Method according to claim 1, further comprising:- performing, via a man-machine interface, the object changes likely to impact one or more of the two given attributes; -compacting, via aggregation means, the object changes likely to impact one or more of the two given attributes; and - recording the compacted changes in the general database” as in claim 1.
Furthermore, WANG et al., in view of Arguello et al. teach the man-machine interface, (see e.g. travel-agent device 110 [[0050, 0051] etc..).
Claims 8-9 are similar in scope to claim 1 and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is directed to a computer program product associated with the method claimed in claim 1.
Claim 9 is directed to a centralized electronic provider object inventory system associated with the method claimed in claim 8 .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geoghegan et al. (US 7328166 B1) - Global Reservations Transaction Management System And Method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUNA CHAMPAGNE whose telephone number is (571)272-7177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at 571 272-6790. 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.
/LUNA CHAMPAGNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 January 20, 2026