DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on May 15, 2026, for the application with serial number 18/921,661.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 18, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that a human being could not implement the steps of the claims. See Remarks pp. 9-10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human being using pen and paper could determine and communicate benchmarks; and re-book travel as recited in the claims. However, a general purpose computer is recited for implementing the abstract ideas. Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The use of a computer to perform calculations and process data in real-time is understood.
The Applicant points to the parent application as evidence of subject matter eligibility of the present claims. See Remarks p. 10. In response, the Examiner points out that the present claims are currently under examination in this Office Action. Furthermore, the present Office Action does not assert that the claims are directed to a mental process. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the mental processes category of abstract idea are moot. Comparing a price to a threshold and notifying a user of the result is not an improvement to a technology or technical field.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
35 USC §112 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the rejection under 35 USC §112 are withdrawn.
35 USC §103 Rejections
Amendments to the claims changed the scope of the claims, necessitating further search and consideration of the prior art. A new search returned the Kemp reference, which is cited in the prior art rejection of the independent claims, below. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended language in the claims are moot in light of the newly cited reference.
The Applicant additionally contends that Hardy does not teach the recitations in the claims to which Hardy is mapped. See Remarks pp. 11-12. In response, the Examiner points to the breadth of exemplary independent claim 1, which essentially recites steps for communicating a benchmark price and/or a change in a benchmark price to a user; and automatically re-booking travel if the price is a threshold amount lower than the benchmark. Hardy is merely cited for teaching steps related to querying a database for travel information, receiving a response, and comparing the response to a policy. Hardy reads on the recitations of the claims, as mapped out in the rejection, below.
Woodings is cited for teaching the continuous querying of a database, as mapped out in the rejection, below. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Hardy reference are moot with respect to said limitation.
The Applicant further submits that Woodings does not teach removing a record from a database, as claimed. In the cited portions of Woodings, filters for displaying information and documents are taught. This reads on the broad limitation of the claim.
The Applicant further contends that Woodings and Hardy cannot be combined because Woodings does not involve travel. See Remarks p. 13-14. In response, the Examiner points to at least ¶[0441] and [0508] of Woodings, which teaches travel expenses. Travel expenses are understood to be a business expense in general, as evidenced by Woodings. A travel expense is consistent with the recited travel price of the claims. The Examiner further points out that this line of reasoning merely applies to the motivational statement. Businesses, in general, are interested in tracking travel expenses; as indicated by both the Hardy and Woodings references.
Again, the Applicant points to the parent Application as evidence that the present claims are allowable. Again, the Examiner reiterates that the present Application is currently under examination. The present claims are distinct from the claims in the parent Application.
The rejection of the dependent claims stands or falls with the rejection of the independent claims. The Examiner additionally points out that A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See CFR §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: notifying users of benchmarks associated with records and re-booking travel (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1: “determine a benchmark based on the revised plurality of real-time records;” “push a notification via a user interface on the client device, the notification being associated with the benchmark;” and “automatically re-book at least a portion of the travel”); abstract ideas. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “receive . . . at least one parameter;” “process the at least one parameter;” “transmit [ ] at least one query to [a] database;” “receive . . . a plurality of real-time records responsive to the at least one query;” “receive an organizational policy;” “remove at least one real-time record;” “determine a benchmark;” “push a notification . . . associated with the benchmark;” “continue querying the database;” “detect . . . a decrease in a current market price of [a] travel option;” “push . . . an updated notification associated with an updated benchmark;” “evaluate one or more cancellation or change policies;” and “automatically re-book at least a portion of the travel.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of notifying users of benchmarks associated with records that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of notifying users of benchmarks associated with records. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of notifying users of benchmarks associated with records. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes determining whether a traveler is over a travel budget based on travel documents.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computing system with a processor, network interface, network, memory, and client device with a user interface in independent claim 1; and a computer implemented method with a client device in independent claim 6; and a method with a client device having a user interface and a network in independent claim 18). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 11,13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to Hardy (hereinafter ‘HARDY’) in view of US 20040267595 A1 to Woodings et al. (hereinafter ‘WOODINGS’) and US 20120226570 A1 to Kemp et al. (hereinafter ‘KEMP’).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended)
HARDY discloses a computing system comprising: one or more processors (see ¶[0029]; a data processor that includes a central processing unit);
a network interface (see ¶[0024] and [0044]; a wireless communication system and network. An interface between a tracking device and an external device) configured to transmit to a database and a client device via a network (see ¶[0034] and [0048]; a database program. See also ¶[0025]; a cellular phone); and
a memory storing program instructions (see ¶[0026] and [0067]-[0069]; a memory and computer-readable instructions) that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to at least:
receive, from the client device over the network, at least one parameter associated with a user and an event (see abstract; the system queries the user verification when the user starts a trip. Travel data includes location, receipts, time and date);
process the at least one parameter to construct at least one query based on the at least one parameter; transmit the at least one query to the database over the network (see ¶[0010] and [0050]; query the user for vehicle information about travel and receive validation data. Determine distance traveled during vehicle travel);
receive, from the database over the network and in real-time based on continuously querying the database using the at least one query, a plurality of real-time records responsive to the at least one query (see ¶[0050]; the businesswoman responds to the query with input into the input device);
receive an organizational policy including at least one organizational policy parameter (see ¶[0005], [0039], and [0064]; use a tax reimbursement form with strict rules for mileage deduction. Tax data includes and data required for proof of travel. Data is stored with a tax deduction flag. Determine the type of tax deduction data desired. See also ¶[0021]; determine if the user is within a travel budget).
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, remove at least one real-time record from the plurality of real-time records based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of an organizational policy parameter, an attribution preference, and a statistical attribute, to generate a revised plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate);
determine a benchmark based on the revised plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and [0354]; keep the user informed about job cost. Track budget information. Provide information regarding costs of the job in relation to the budget. Allow a user to identify projects that are behind budget);
push a notification via a user interface on the client device, the notification being associated with the benchmark (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses); and
continue querying the database after the benchmark has been determined (see again ¶[0138]-[0140]; track budget information and compare scheduled information to actual information. Provide information regarding costs in relation to the budget. Identify over-scheduling projects that are behind or ahead of budget before the work is done. See also ¶[0011]; a real-time system that tracks and manages multiple workers and projects).
The combination of HARDY and WOODINGS does not specifically disclose, but KEMP discloses, detect, based on the continued querying, a decrease in a current market price of at least one travel option represented by the plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; monitor the price of travel and alert the cardholder to price decreases);
push, via the user interface on the client device, an updated notification associated with an updated benchmark based on the detected decrease (see again ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; monitor the price of travel and alert the cardholder to price decreases. Send an alert when the price decrease is greater than the change fee);
evaluate one or more cancellation or change policies associated with travel already booked in connection with the event (see again ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; monitor the price of travel and alert the cardholder to price decreases. Send an alert when the price decrease is greater than the change fee); and
automatically re-book at least a portion of the travel when the detected decrease would result in additional savings in view of the evaluated one or more cancellation or change policies (see again ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; assist the user in rebooking travel. Rebook travel at the lower price).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the pop up alerts as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. KEMP discloses tracking price changes in travel purchases to allow rebooking at a lower price. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the rebooking at a lower cost as taught by KEMP in the system executing the method of HARDY and WOODINGS with the motivation to reduce a travel budget.
Claim 2 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
HARDY further discloses wherein the event includes a travel booking (see ¶[0038]; a travel itinerary) and wherein the real-time record is based on a price (see ¶[0021]; allow a user to determine if they are within a travel budget).
Claim 6 (Currently Amended)
HARDY discloses a computer implemented method (see ¶[0029]; a data processor that includes a central processing unit), comprising: receiving, from a client device (see ¶[0025]; a cellular phone), at least one parameter associated with an event (see abstract; the system queries the user verification when the user starts a trip. Travel data includes location, receipts, time and date).
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, determining a plurality of real-time records that are responsive to the at least one parameter by continuously querying one or more databases (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate).
HARDY further discloses determining a policy associated with a user (see ¶[0005], [0039], and [0064]; use a tax reimbursement form with strict rules for mileage deduction. Tax data includes and data required for proof of travel. Data is stored with a tax deduction flag. Determine the type of tax deduction data desired. See also ¶[0021]; determine if the user is within a travel budget).
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, removing from consideration at least one real-time record from the plurality of real-time pricing travel records based on the policy to generate a plurality of policy compliant pricing travel records from the plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate);
subsequent to removing the at least one real-time record, determining a budget for the event based on the plurality of policy compliant records (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and [0354]; keep the user informed about job cost. Track budget information. Provide information regarding costs of the job in relation to the budget. Allow a user to identify projects that a behind budget);
continuing to query the one or more databases after the limit has been determined (see again ¶[0138]-[0140]; track budget information and compare scheduled information to actual information. Provide information regarding costs in relation to the budget. Identify over-scheduling projects that are behind or ahead of budget before the work is done. See also ¶[0011]; a real-time system that tracks and manages multiple workers and projects);
pushing one or more notifications to the client device via a user interface on the client device, the one or more notifications being associated with the limit (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses);
The combination of HARDY and WOODINGS does not specifically disclose, but KEMP discloses, corresponding to a detected change in a current market price of at least one of the plurality of policy compliant records, wherein the change is detected based on the continued querying of the one or more databases (see ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; monitor the price of travel and alert the cardholder to price decreases).
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, receiving an incurred value associated with the limit budget (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and [0354]; keep the user informed about job cost. Track budget information. Provide information regarding costs of the job in relation to the budget. Allow a user to identify projects that a behind budget);
pushing a representation via the user interface on the client device, the representation being associated with the incurred value relative to a budget corresponding to the limit (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses).
HARDY further discloses providing the incurred value to a further database other than the one or more databases to facilitate reimbursement of the incurred expense (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; people involved in a business use a tax reimbursement form to report business expenses. See also ¶[0034]; use data base programs to store data for processing).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the pop up alerts as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. KEMP discloses tracking price changes in travel purchases to allow rebooking at a lower price. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the rebooking at a lower cost as taught by KEMP in the system executing the method of HARDY and WOODINGS with the motivation to reduce a travel budget.
Claim 9 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the computer implemented method as set forth in claim 6.
HARDY further discloses wherein receiving the incurred value associated with the event includes: obtaining an image of a document associated with the incurred value; and
performing character recognition on the image of the document (see ¶[0045]; scanner may facilitate optical character recognition to convert printed data into searchable data).
Claim 11 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the computer implemented method as set forth in claim 6.
HARDY further discloses wherein the event is a travel booking (see ¶[0038]; a travel itinerary).
Claim 13 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
HARDY further discloses wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: transmit the at least one query to the database over the network (see ¶[0010] and [0050]; query the user for vehicle information about travel and receive validation data. Determine distance traveled during vehicle travel).
Claim 15 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: subsequent to a removal of at least one of the plurality of records, provide the revised plurality of real-time records for presentation on the client device (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes filters for displaying information and documents. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the filters as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
Claim 16 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: receive an incurred value associated with the benchmark; and push a representation via the user interface on the client device, the representation being associated with the incurred value relative to the benchmark (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the pop up alerts as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
Claim 17 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 16.
HARDY further discloses wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: provide the incurred value to a further database other than the one or more databases to facilitate reimbursement of the incurred expense (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; people involved in a business use a tax reimbursement form to report business expenses. See also ¶[0034]; use data base programs to store data for processing).
Claim 18 (Currently Amended)
HARDY discloses a method (see abstract; a system and method) comprising: receiving, from a client device over a network (see ¶[0024] and [0044]; a wireless communication system and network. An interface between a tracking device and an external device), at least one parameter associated with a user and an event (see abstract; the system queries the user verification when the user starts a trip. Travel data includes location, receipts, time and date);
processing the at least one parameter to construct at least one query based on the at least one parameter; transmitting the at least one query to a database over the network (see ¶[0010] and [0050]; query the user for vehicle information about travel and receive validation data. Determine distance traveled during vehicle travel);
receiving, from the database over the network and in real-time based on continuously querying the database using the at least one query, a plurality of real-time records responsive to the at least one query (see ¶[0050]; the businesswoman responds to the query with input into the input device); and
receiving an organizational policy including at least one organizational policy parameter (see ¶[0005], [0039], and [0064]; use a tax reimbursement form with strict rules for mileage deduction. Tax data includes and data required for proof of travel. Data is stored with a tax deduction flag. Determine the type of tax deduction data desired. See also ¶[0021]; determine if the user is within a travel budget).
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, removing at least one real-time record from the plurality of real-time records based on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of an organizational policy parameter, an attribution preference, and a statistical attribute, to generate a revised plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate);
determining a benchmark based on the revised plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and [0354]; keep the user informed about job cost. Track budget information. Provide information regarding costs of the job in relation to the budget. Allow a user to identify projects that a behind budget);
pushing a notification via a user interface on the client device, the notification being associated with the benchmark (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses);
continuing to query the database after the benchmark has been established (see again ¶[0138]-[0140]; track budget information and compare scheduled information to actual information. Provide information regarding costs in relation to the budget. Identify over-scheduling projects that are behind or ahead of budget before the work is done. See also ¶[0011]; a real-time system that tracks and manages multiple workers and projects).
The combination of HARDY and WOODINGS does not specifically disclose, but KEMP discloses, detecting a change in the plurality of real-time records, wherein the change is detected based on the continued querying of the database (see ¶[0023], [0027], and [0064]; monitor the price of travel and alert the cardholder to price decreases); and
pushing, via the user interface on the client device, an updated notification associated with an updated benchmark based on the change in the plurality of real-time records (see ¶[0124], [0390], [0541], [0586], and [0675]-[0676]; the job file has an update list to send document updates whenever a document is updated for a job. Total travel/fringe is calculated based on the number of regular hours times the rate. Amounts are recalculated automatically as any number in the worker row is changed. Clicking save changes the time report row records in the database. Auto update can be set up on any level of information. Identify any information that has changed between users. The recipient receives the information in their IE mail box. Smart alerts empowers the user to say informed up to the minute).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the pop up alerts as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. KEMP discloses tracking price changes in travel purchases to allow rebooking at a lower price. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the rebooking at a lower cost as taught by KEMP in the system executing the method of HARDY and WOODINGS with the motivation to reduce a travel budget.
Claim 20 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the method as set forth in claim 18.
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, further comprising: receiving an incurred value associated with the benchmark (see ¶[0138]-[0140] and [0354]; keep the user informed about job cost. Track budget information. Provide information regarding costs of the job in relation to the budget. Allow a user to identify projects that a behind budget);
pushing a representation via the user interface on the client device, the representation being associated with the incurred value relative to the benchmark (see ¶[0675]; utilize emails and pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached. See also ¶[0508] and [0540]-[0541]; display travel expenses).
HARDY further discloses providing the incurred value to a further database other than the one or more databases to facilitate reimbursement of the incurred expense (see ¶[0004]-[0005]; people involved in a business use a tax reimbursement form to report business expenses. See also ¶[0034]; use data base programs to store data for processing).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the pop up alerts as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to HARDY in view of US 20040267595 A1 to WOODINGS et al. and US 20120226570 A1 to KEMP et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US 5781892 A to Hunt et al. (hereinafter ‘HUNT’).
Claim 3 (Currently Amended)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 2.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not specifically disclose, but HUNT discloses, wherein the attribution preference includes at least one of airline, time of day, number of stops, type of seat, type of plane, possibility of upgrade, on-board amenities, type of room, and airports (see col 2, ln 42-53; filter airline reservation information according to a specific airline).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes pop up alerts to notify management of thresholds that have been reached regarding budgets and travel expenses that includes filters for displaying documents. HUNT discloses a travel reservation system that includes filtering airline travel information according to airline. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the filtering based on airline as taught by HUNT in the system executing the method of HARDY and WOODINGS with the motivation to filter travel documents.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to HARDY in view of US 20040267595 A1 to WOODINGS et al. and US 20120226570 A1 to KEMP et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US 20140358825 A1 to Phillips et al. (hereinafter ‘PHILLIPS’).
Claim 4 (Currently Amended)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but WOODINGS discloses, wherein to remove the at least one real-time record from the plurality of real-time records is based on an attribution preference (see ¶[0022]-[0023], [0249]-[0252], [0316]-[0318], [0388], and [0684] and Fig. 72; set filters for displaying information and documents. Search records by employee number, and work status. Searching records by a parameter. A default state for company preferences. Restrict access to memos based on user preferences and permissions. Display items based on user preferences, including contract hours and budgeted rate);
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). WOODINGS discloses a worker an document management system that includes searching and filtering records based on record parameters. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the parameter based filtering as taught by WOODINGS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to track vehicle travel and expenditures.
The combination of HARDY and WOODINGS does not specifically disclose, but PHILLIPS discloses, wherein the program instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: determine a plurality of attribution preferences based on historical data associated with the user, wherein a determination of the attribution preferences includes providing a weight of importance for each of the plurality of attribution preferences (see ¶[0096]; rank attributes according to a frequency that an attribute occurred).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[) that collects attribute data from customers (see ¶[0035]). PHILLIPS discloses machine learning with data display that includes impact metrics ranked according to frequency of occurrence. It would have been obvious to rank attributes according to frequency of occurrence an to analyze customer data with attributes.
Claim 5 (Original)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, KEMP, and PHILLIPS discloses the system as set forth in claim 4.
HARDY does not specifically disclose, but PHILLIPS discloses, wherein each weight of importance is correlated to a frequency for each of the plurality of attribution preferences (see ¶[0096]; rank attributes according to a frequency that an attribute occurred).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[) that collects attribute data from customers (see ¶[0035]). PHILLIPS discloses machine learning with data display that includes impact metrics ranked according to frequency of occurrence. It would have been obvious to rank attributes according to frequency of occurrence as taught by PHILLIPS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to analyze customer data with attributes.
Claim 19 (Currently Amended)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the method as set forth in claim 18.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not specifically disclose, but PHILLIPS discloses, wherein to remove the at least one real-time record from the plurality of real-time records is based on an attribution preference; and wherein the method further comprises: determining a plurality of attribution preferences based on historical data associated with the user, wherein a determination of the attribution preferences includes providing a weight of importance for each of the plurality of attribution preferences (see ¶[0096]; rank attributes according to a frequency that an attribute occurred).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[) that collects attribute data from customers (see ¶[0035]). PHILLIPS discloses machine learning with data display that includes impact metrics ranked according to frequency of occurrence. It would have been obvious to rank attributes according to frequency of occurrence as taught by PHILLIPS in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to analyze customer data with attributes.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to HARDY in view of US 20040267595 A1 to WOODINGS et al. and US 20120226570 A1 to KEMP et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20130325557 A1 to Ricci et al. (hereinafter ‘RICCI’).
Claim 7 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the computer implemented method as set forth in claim 6.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not specifically disclose, but RICCI discloses, further comprising: determining an incentive based on the incurred value relative to the limit, wherein the incentive is directly proportional to a remaining budget until the limit is reached (see ¶[0033]; provide a gain share model to business travel and entertainment expenses, thereby connecting cost-saving with cash payments to employees and creating an incentive for employees to select less expensive travel and entertainment options).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). RICCI discloses managing travel costs by providing employees with cash payments as an incentive to select less expensive travel options. It would have been obvious to include the cash payments as taught by RICCI in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to manage travel expenditures.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to HARDY in view of US 20040267595 A1 to WOODINGS et al. and US 20120226570 A1 to KEMP et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20040054562 A1 to Tanaka (hereinafter ‘TANAKA’).
Claim 8 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the computer implemented method as set forth in claim 6.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not explicitly disclose, but TANAKA discloses, further comprising: determining a range associated with the plurality of records; and removing at least one record from the plurality of real-time records having a record value outside of the range (see ¶[0034] and Fig. 7; a budget report that is filtered using a date range increment).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). TANAKA discloses an enterprise management tool that includes a budget report that is filtered by date ranges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to filter a budget report according to date ranges as taught by TANAKA in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to determine whether a user is within a travel budget.
Claim 12 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not explicitly disclose, but TANAKA discloses, wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: determine a range associated with the plurality of records; and remove at least one record from the plurality of records having a record value outside of the range (see ¶[0034] and Fig. 7; a budget report that is filtered using a date range increment).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). TANAKA discloses an enterprise management tool that includes a budget report that is filtered by date ranges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to filter a budget report according to date ranges as taught by TANAKA in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to determine whether a user is within a travel budget.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070150139 A1 to HARDY in view of US 20040267595 A1 to WOODINGS et al. and US 20120226570 A1 to KEMP et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20140358743 A1 to Marseille (hereinafter ‘MARSEILLE’).
Claim 10 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the computer implemented method as set forth in claim 6.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not explicitly disclose, but MARSEILLE discloses, wherein receiving the incurred value associated with the event includes: obtaining transaction information associated with the incurred value from a third-party system (see ¶[0026]; the system may also include other types of data, such as weather, traffic, current exchange rates, reference prices/costs for travel related expenses in various locations around the world, and the like via interface to third-party data sources 140).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). MARSEILLE discloses a travel mistake and fraud detection system that includes obtaining travel related expense information from third-party data sources. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the third-party data sources as taught by MARSEILLE in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to determine whether a user is within a travel budget.
Claim 14 (Previously Presented)
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
The combination of HARDY, WOODINGS, and KEMP does not explicitly disclose, but MARSEILLE discloses, wherein the program instructions further include instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to at least: determine a statistical attribute associated with the plurality of real-time records; and wherein the at least one factor selected from the group includes the statistical attribute (see ¶[0034]; if reference or historical values of travel expenses are within a historical threshold, classify as reasonable. If not, classify as a mistake or fraud).
HARDY discloses a method for tracking vehicle travel and expenditures that includes determining whether a user is within a travel budget (see ¶[0021[). MARSEILLE discloses a travel mistake and fraud detection system that includes obtaining travel related expense information and classifying the information as reasonable or fraudulent based on a statistical threshold. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include the statistical threshold as taught by MARSEILLE in the system executing the method of HARDY with the motivation to determine whether expenses are reasonable or potentially fraudulent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights