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 4/17/26 has been entered. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-9 are presented for examination.
Specification
Paragraph 0052 contained new matter and is requested by Applicant to be removed from the specification. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is cancelled. The objection is withdrawn.
Note to Applicant
Applicant referenced claim 10 in the remarks. However, claim 10 is not listed in the claim set.
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 1-3, 5-9 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;
-decreasing a number of queries to the centralized inventory system by: periodically, according to a first predetermined period, 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, longer than the first 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. by a processor, 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 1-3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciabrini et al. (US 20160171008 A1), in view of WANG et al. (US 20170046803 A1)
Re-claim 1, Ciabrini et al. teach-- A method, performed by a centralized inventory system, for centrally updating an inventory of electronic provider objects, the method comprising:
-receiving, by a processor, object changes that impact one or more of two given attributes of an electronic provider object; - placing the object changes in a first queue; --
(see e.g. [0058] The DCP 2 is equipped with additional communication interfaces for incorporating data which it uses for the determination of the accuracy probabilities of the cached prices. These interfaces include, for example, communication links for incorporating statistical data which forms the basis of the probabilistic model and for receiving asynchronous real-time events such as fares changes and flight availability announcements populated by airlines or customer promotion campaigns.)
--decreasing, by the processor, a number of queries to the centralized inventory system by: periodically, according to a first predetermined period, merging, by the processor, a plurality of object changes from the first queue by change category;
(see e.g. [0052] Optionally, events are also accumulated and analyzed in groups in order to filter out events which might outdate too few cached query results and/or might be considered irrelevant. Also for this reason, events are logged, collected over time and handled in an aggregated manner. In this way, generating too much re-computation orders in response to low-impact events is prevented and, thus, a disproportional increase of computation resource costs is avoided.)
for each change category, determining which data pairs of a general database external to the centralized inventory system, are impacted by the merged object changes, each data pair being formed by the two given attributes;
(see e.g. [0041] If fares for a specific origin-destination-city-pair are updated by the airline, the likelihood may be increased that a pre-calculated and cached flight price regarding this city pair is not correct anymore.)
[0068] positively track at least and in any case those prices which are probably impacted e.g. by a real-time event indicating fares changes,
[0094] The consolidator 7 first assesses the potential influence of the real-time event on the cached prices rather than initiating re-computation of cached travel recommendations without having considered the relationship of the event with the basic probabilistic model. Such events are first analyzed with respect to their representation in the probabilistic model.)
-placing, by the processor, each impacted data pair in a second queue
(see e.g. [0024] Basic data is kept in a computation platform 3 which is connected to a cache platform 2. The latter one issues re-computation orders to the computation platform 3 which, in turn, transmits the corresponding results back to the cache platform 2 where the pre-computed query results are stored.
[0046] In response to receiving a re-computation order, the re-computation platform 3 re-computes the respective query results and returns them to the data cache platform 2 where they are stored and the monitoring and determination of the probabilities recurs.)
--determining, by the processor, for each impacted data pair, an update of one or more of the two given attributes over a second predetermined period, longer than the first predetermined period, via a query to the general database;
[0083] Modulate the popular city pairs based on their geo-location and on the re-computation hour: This strategy additionally takes statistics into account which city-pair flights are queried more often at particular times of a day.
[0084] As a side effect, the analyzer 6 updates the volatility model database 10 based on the values of recently re-computed prices received from the MCP 3 and incorporated into the DCP 2. As the analyzer can track the actual volatility of cached prices based on repeating re-computations, it can feed these statistical information back to the volatility model database 10. To update the volatility model, the analyzer 6 counts the number of differences between the newly computed price results and the previously received price values. From these differences it updates the volatility parameters for the respective parts of the analyzed prices.)
Although Ciabrini et al. teach in at least [0098] “The DCP 2 compares the results of the sample re-computations with the corresponding database query results previously cached and, e.g., determines the percentage of the sample pre-computed database query results having changed”
Ciabrini et al. do not teach the following limitations as claimed.
However, WANG et al. teach -comparing, by the processor, 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, by the processor, the data pair update to an electronic provider object inventory platform; and recording, by the processor, 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.)
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 Ciabrini et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by WANG et al., in order to encode the data into a form that facilitates search, comparison, and/or storage efficiency, (see e.g. [0084]).
Re-claims 2, 3, Ciabrini et al. do not teach the following limitations as claimed.
However, 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. )
3. The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising:
-receiving, from 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.)
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 Ciabrini et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by WANG et al., in order to obtain the up-to-date macro and micro travel-fingerprints and distinguish changes that are significant for availability-monitoring purposes (see e.g. [0090], [0052]).
Re-claims 5, 6, Ciabrini et al., in view of WANG et al. do not explicitly teach -the method of claim 1, 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 both Ciabrini et al., and WANG et al. since
Ciabrini et al., teach “the probabilistic model indicates that pre-computed cached prices belonging to flights upcoming in the next month should be re-computed more often than such pre-computed prices which are associated with flights in the more distant future.” [0037]
WANG et al. teach “the agent gathers flight PNRs encoded with an “urgency” attribute and places them into a CRS queue periodically -see e.g. [0050,0052].
Therefore, Ciabrini et al., and WANG et al. anticipate predetermined specific periods of time. No unpredictable results are foreseen.
Re-claim 7, Ciabrini et al., in view of WANG et al. teach The 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., 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Non Final action dated 1/28/26 have been considered but are moot because the reference Ciabrini et al. teach the argued limitations.
With respect to the 101 rejection,
Applicant argued:
1)--As amended, claim 1 is directed to a specific computer-implemented data-processing architecture for centralized inventory synchronization, not to the abstract idea of "updating inventory" in the air.
The amended claim now expressly recites that key operations are performed by a processor, including receiving object changes, decreasing the number of queries by periodically merging multiple object changes by change category, determining which data pairs of an external general database are impacted by the merged object changes, placing impacted data pairs in a second queue, determining updates via queries to the general database, comparing hash values, and transmitting and/or recording resulting updates. Thus, even the Examiner's prior observation "but for the 'by a processor' language" is no longer applicable to present claim 1, which affirmatively recites processor-based implementation throughout.
1)The Examiner notes that the key operations listed above are generic functions of a processor and are not directed to directed to an improvement specific to a computer network or the processor.
2)Furthermore, Applicant argued that the claims are analogous to McRO, DDR Holdings, Enfish, Desjardins.
The Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument and maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of centrally updating prices and availability of travel-related goods and services.
For example, the claims here are critically different from those determined to be patent eligible in McRO, DDR Holdings, Enfish, Desjardins.
The current invention does not improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable on a computer. Instead, the current invention may provide improvement to tracking and updating price changes and availability of services at a central location (i.e. abstract idea). However, the Courts have determined that improvements to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than said abstract idea (Alice).
In McRO, the claims were not held abstract because they recited a “specific . . . improvement in computer animation” using “unconventional rules that relate[d] sub sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1302-03, 1307-08, 1314-15. In McRO, “the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer,” improved an existing technological process. Id. at 1314.
The Examiner notes that the patent at issue in DDR Holdings instructs an internet web server of an outsource provider to construct and serve to visitors a new hybrid web page that merges contents associated with products of a third-party merchant with stored visually perceptible elements from the identified host website. The DDR Holdings solution is rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability.
Furthermore, in ENFISH vs. MICROSOFT, the Court found that the claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table, and that the self-referential table functions differently than conventional database structures. In fact, the Court stated that “In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one, because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data”.
3)With respect to Desjardins, Applicant argued:
--Desjardins generally confirms that even where a claim may recite an abstract idea at Prong One, the proper inquiry at Prong Two is whether the claim, considered as a whole, reflects the disclosed improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. The USPTO memorandum further generally explains that the claim "not need to explicitly recite the improvement", so long as the claim includes the components or steps that provide the improvement described in the specification, and that examiners should avoid evaluating claims at such a high level of generality that meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation.
3)Examiner’s response:
During examination, a two-step analysis was performed. First, the Examiner identified the abstract idea. Then the examiner looked to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those “additional features” must be more than “well understood, routine, conventional activity.” See Alice.
It has been determined that the limitations, as claimed and listed above, describe fundamental economic practices and certain methods of organizing human activities. Multiple abstract ideas do not transform an unpatentable process into a patentable one.
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.
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 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 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights