DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/283,065, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 15: due to the additional subject matter of “a TripChat of a travel site”
Accordingly, claim 15 and its dependent claims, claims 16 and 17, are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application 63/283,065.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged for Application No. 63/283,065 for claims 1-14. With regards to this application, Applicant has complied the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged for Application No. 63/305,989 for claims 15-17. With regards to this application, Applicant has complied the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the total fee” in limitation 9 of claim 1 and limitation 11 of claim 8 and should recite “a total fee” due to there being no previous recitation of “a total fee” to which this recitation refers. This further clarifies that all subsequent recitations of “the total fee” refer to the “total fee” recited in these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “A method of a vacation rental property” however it is unclear how the method relates to the vacation rental property. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “A method of planning rental of a vacation rental property”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 7-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and claims 15-17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-17 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 8 substantially recite split rental of a property comprising:
identifying a suitable property;
determining that the property is suitable for more than one person;
transferring to split booking based on the determination;
receiving input of a number of split-bookers;
receiving input on how to split fees;
transmitting notification to the split-bookers;
receiving agreement to split-book from a split-booker;
selecting a sharing amount based on the received agreement;
determining when the total fee is covered;
when the total fee is covered, determining that the booking is still available; and
completing booking based on the determination that the booking is still available.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interaction, sales activities or behaviors, and managing personal interactions between people) of travel-related split billing (Specification, Para. 2). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 substantially recites presenting a selected travel destination;
allowing for communications to plan a trip to the selected travel destination;
storing one or more opinions on the selected travel destination; and
tracking a vote on the selected travel destination.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interaction, sales activities or behaviors, and managing personal interactions between people) of travel related communication (Specification, Para. 2). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. No additional elements were included in independent claim 1. Claims 8 and 15 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) A processor (claim 8), (ii) a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor (claim 8), and (iii) a TripChat of a travel site (claim 15).
The additional elements of (i) a processor, and (ii) a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor are recited at a high level of generality (See (Para. 142) of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the processor and (Para. 143) discussing the memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (iii) a TripChat of a travel site are recited at a high level of generality (See Para. 113 of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the TripChat of a travel site) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. interactive messaging software) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, as noted above, no additional elements were included in independent claim 1. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, no additional elements were included in independent claim 1; and the additional elements in claims 8 and 15 amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 8, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-17 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-17 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 7 and 14 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 7 and 14 also recites the additional elements of a database, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0132] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the database) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 7 and 14 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (“Airbnb Concept: How to plan group trips on together on Airbnb”; December 12, 2018) (hereafter Zhang).
In regards to claim 15, Zhang discloses a method of a vacation rental property, the method comprising: presenting a selected travel destination within a TripChat of a travel site; (Pg. 6, Figs. 9 and 11) (“Create Travel Team (i.e. TripChat of a travel site) … Airbnb can allow users to create travel team so members can add preferred housing to team wishlist (i.e. presenting selected travel destination within a tripchat). Each member can also write their introduction, so the communication with either members or hosts can be more efficient.”; Figs. 9 and 11 show specific destinations selected for trips within the Travel Team (i.e. TripChat).)
Zhang discloses allowing for communications to plan a trip to the selected travel destination within the TripChat of the travel site; (Pg. 11, Fig. 9) (“The Group chat will allow members to discuss and finalize the results.”; Fig 9 displays communication to plan a trip to the selected destination within Travel Team (i.e. TripChat).)
Zhang discloses storing one or more opinions on the selected travel destination within the TripChat of the travel site; and (Pg. 11) (“Inside the Travel Team, users are able to fill out the survey and see the results.” That is survey results (i.e. one or more opinions on the selected travel destination) are stored within Travel Team (i.e. TripChat).)
Zhang discloses tracking a vote on the selected travel destination within the TripChat of the travel site. (Pg. 7) (“Voting … Each member of the travel team can vote for different features of the housing such as size, location, and price. Therefore, based on the voting, every member can better express their opinions towards housing search and selection.” “Inside the Travel Team (i.e. within TripChat), users are able to fill out the survey and see the results (i.e. tracking a vote on the selected destination). The format of the survey is similar to the individual housing preferences. After every member filled out the Survey, the team administer (member who created the team) will be able to edit the final preference and save it as team preference.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US 20190066002) (hereafter Bayer) in view of Hays (US 20170278108) (hereafter Hays).
In regards to claim 1, Bayer discloses a method of split rental of a property, the method comprising: identifying a suitable property; (Para. 14, 50, 56) (“Systems and methods described herein relate to facilitating real-time (or near real-time) approval for individual members for group reservations and payments for a reservation via an online marketplace for travel (e.g., accommodations, flights, car rental, tours, and so forth). This allows individuals of a group of people to collectively make and pay for a booking on the online marketplace at the time of booking.” “The transaction module 212 may further comprise code configured to enable clients to request and be approved for group trips, including group payments for a group trip. This may include … accessing the group trip store 226 to determine the parameters for the group trip, determining whether a listing associated with a trip item meets the parameters for the group trip” “a group of two people, traveler A and traveler B, would like to travel together on a trip to Paris. Traveler A may search for a place to stay in Paris via an online marketplace. For example, the online marketplace may provide a user interface via a computing device (e.g., via a local application or web-based interface on the computing device) that allows traveler A to search for listings of accommodations (i.e. identifying a suitable property), view listings,”
Bayer discloses determining that the property is suitable for more than one person; (Para. 50, 57, 77, Fig. 7) (“This may include storing client or user parameters related to the group trip or trip items in the group trip store 226, accessing the group trip store 226 to determine the parameters for the group trip, determining whether a listing associated with a trip item meets the parameters for the group trip” “The listing may include a detailed description 709” “the parameters specified by the user initiating the group trip includes … the number of bedrooms, or types of bedrooms each member will be entitled to as part of the booking (e.g., private bedroom, or shared space).”; Figure 7 displays that the parameters of the listing (i.e. property) include the number of guests it accommodates (i.e. suitable for more than one person). That is, listings are compared to the group parameters, such as number of people in the group (i.e. more than one person), and only shows listing that match the group parameters (i.e. property is suitable for more than one person).)
Bayer discloses transferring to split booking based on the determination; (Para. 58) (“The user may select the group trip option 715 (i.e. transferring to split booking), specify various parameters associated with the group trip (or trip item), and provide contact information (e.g., name, email address, phone number, address, etc.) for traveler B (or any other users that will be part of the group trip).
Bayer discloses receiving input of a number of split-bookers; (Para. 58) (“The user may select the group trip option 715, specify various parameters associated with the group trip (or trip item), and provide contact information (e.g., name, email address, phone number, address, etc.) for traveler B (or any other users that will be part of the group trip) (i.e. inputting a number of split-bookers).”)
Bayer discloses receiving input on how to split fees; (Para. 58-59, 75) (“The user may select the group trip option 715, specify various parameters associated with the group trip … parameters may include … that the reservation will be split 50% for each user (i.e. receiving input on how to split fees) (e.g., 50% by traveler A and 50% by traveler B).” “embodiments can work for groups of n size, and with x people for how to split the payments. … At the time of the booking, when a person in the group makes the booking, each portion of the group will be charged based on the pre-set proportions agreed to”)
Bayer discloses transmitting notification to the split-bookers; (Para. 61) (“After receiving the request to register a group trip from the computing device, the server computing system sends a notification to the other users in the group that were specified in the request to register a group trip for approval to be included in the group trip, as shown in operation 304.”)
Bayer discloses receiving agreement to split-book from a split-booker; (Para. 61-62) (“the server computing system may send an email or other message to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., second user or traveler B) requesting approval to be included in the group trip. The notification may include the parameters of the group trip or trip item and request that the user authorize a transaction that falls into those parameters. … In operation 306, the server computing system receives authorization (i.e. agreement to split book form a split-booker) from a computing device associated with the second user to be included in the group trip. The authorization may include information about the user, payment device information (e.g., payment device identifier and related information), and so forth.”)
Bayer discloses selecting a sharing amount based on the received agreement; (Para. 71-72, 76) (“the server computing system approves the request to book the trip item for the group trip based on determining that the listing for the trip item meets the parameters for the group trip. … a user interface for an online marketplace and then almost instantly receive a confirmation that the trip item is booked and approved for the group trip (or denied because it does not meet the parameters of the group trip). In operation 408, upon approving the request to book the trip item, the server computing system automatically charges a payment device for each user in the group according to the parameters related to the group trip. … the server computing system would automatically charge the first user for 50% percent of the total amount and the second user 50% of the total amount. In the Paris example above, traveler A would be charged $575 and traveler B would be charged $575 (i.e. sharing amount based on the received agreement).” “embodiments can work for groups of n size, and with x people for how to split the payments. In one example, a group of five people may comprise two couples and one individual. Example embodiments allow for a member of the couple to agree to pay for the couple together, or only as an individual. So for example, a member of the first couple agrees to pay the charges for both members of the couple (e.g., ⅖=40%), the second couple has each member agree to pay for their own portion (e.g., 2×⅕=2×20%=40%), and the individual agrees to pay for his/her portion too (⅕=20%). At the time of the booking, when a person in the group makes the booking, each portion of the group will be charged based on the pre-set proportions agreed to (i.e. selecting a sharing amount based on the received agreement) (in this case, 40%, 20%, 20% and 20%)”)
Bayer discloses determining when the total fee is covered; (Para. 79) (“the user initiating the group adds group members at the time of finding an appropriate accommodation. The members of the group are then notified to approve the specific accommodation selected according to his/her proportion. Once 100% of the group allocation is approved (i.e. determining the total fee is covered), the platform makes the booking reservation and charges the various members.” That is, once all paying group members have approved the accommodations and their proportions, then the total fee is determined to be covered.)
Bayer discloses when the total fee is covered, making the booking reservation. (Para. 79) (“Once 100% of the group allocation is approved, the platform makes the booking reservation”)
As discussed above, Bayer discloses making the booking reservation. Bayer does not explicitly disclose, however Hays, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the making the booking reservations of Bayer is by determining that the booking is still available; and completing booking based on the determination that the booking is still available. (Para. 39) (“The process of booking a reserved itinerary (i.e., making the booking reservations of Bayer) may include checking the inventory database 20 for availability (i.e. determining the booking is still available) of the products identified by the reserved itinerary, e.g., … room vacancies in a hotel, etc. … If the requested products are available, the products may be booked, a booking confirmation transmitted to the OLTP system 12, and the inventory in the inventory database 20 adjusted to reflect the booking. In response to the traveler approving the transaction, payment may be made from the traveler to the merchant by billing the traveler's account for the price of the services. In response to receiving payment, the booking may be confirmed by the supplier system 16 (i.e. completing booking based on the determination that the booking is still available.).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group travel system of Bayer with transaction processing of Hays in order to improve the accuracy and speed of completing online transactions. (Hays – Para. 3)
In regards to claim 2, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer discloses wherein identifying a suitable property includes presenting one or more properties to at least one user for selection by the user. (Para. 56, Fig. 7) (“Traveler A may search for a place to stay in Paris via an online marketplace. For example, the online marketplace may provide a user interface via a computing device (e.g., via a local application or web-based interface on the computing device) that allows traveler A to search for listings of accommodations, view listings, (i.e. presenting one or more properties to at least one user for selection by the user); Figure 7 displaying a property presented to a user for selection.)
In regards to claim 3, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer discloses wherein determining that the property is suitable for more than one person includes determining at least one of a size of the property, a number of bedrooms of the property, and a size of a bedroom of the property and comparing the at least one of a size of the property, a number of bedrooms of the property, and a size of a bedroom of the property to a predetermined threshold. (Para. 42, 50, 77, 98) (“for an accommodation reservation system, a listing may include a type of accommodation (e.g., house, apartment, room, sleeping space, or other), a representation of its size (e.g., square footage, or number of rooms),” “This may include storing client or user parameters related to the group trip or trip items in the group trip store 226, accessing the group trip store 226 to determine the parameters for the group trip, determining whether a listing associated with a trip item meets the parameters for the group trip (i.e. comparing the size of the property, a number of bedrooms of the property, and a size of a bedroom of the property to a predetermined threshold)” “the parameters specified by the user initiating the group trip includes … the number of bedrooms, or types of bedrooms each member will be entitled to as part of the booking (e.g., private bedroom, or shared space).” “Information about each room may include a size of the room (e.g., square footage or relative to the other rooms (e.g., the biggest room, the smallest room, etc.), amenities associated with the room (e.g., bathroom in the room, view from the room, closet, desk or other furniture, kid friendly, etc.), the number and size of the beds in the rooms,”)
In regards to claim 4, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer discloses wherein receiving input of the number of split-bookers comprises an input from a user. (Para. 58) (“The user may select the group trip option 715, specify various parameters associated with the group trip (or trip item), and provide contact information (e.g., name, email address, phone number, address, etc.) (i.e. input from a user) for traveler B (or any other users that will be part of the group trip) (i.e. inputting a number of split-bookers).”)
In regards to claim 5, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer discloses wherein receiving input of the number of split-bookers comprises a representative of each user splitting the booking. (Para. 58) (“The user may select the group trip option 715, specify various parameters associated with the group trip (or trip item), and provide contact information (e.g., name (i.e. representative of each user splitting the booking), email address, phone number, address, etc.) for traveler B (or any other users that will be part of the group trip)”)
In regards to claim 6, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer discloses wherein determining when the total fee is covered comprises receiving a number of split-bookers, receiving a payment amount for each of the number of split- bookers, and determining when the total fee is covered based on the number of split-bookers and the payment amount for each of the number of split-bookers. (Para. 72, 75, 77, 79) (“the server computing system would automatically charge the first user for 50% percent of the total amount and the second user 50% of the total amount. In the Paris example above, traveler A would be charged $575 and traveler B would be charged $575. In this way the booking is paid for by the group at the time of booking” “embodiments can work for groups of n size, and with x people for how to split the payments. In one example, a group of five people may comprise two couples and one individual. Example embodiments allow for a member of the couple to agree to pay for the couple together, or only as an individual. So for example, a member of the first couple agrees to pay the charges for both members of the couple (e.g., ⅖=40%), the second couple has each member agree to pay for their own portion (e.g., 2×⅕=2×20%=40%), and the individual agrees to pay for his/her portion too (⅕=20%). At the time of the booking, when a person in the group makes the booking, each portion of the group will be charged based on the pre-set proportions agreed to (in this case, 40%, 20%, 20% and 20%).” “the person initiating a group trip of two members can specify that he/she pays 60% and the other person only pays 40%.” “the user initiating the group adds group members at the time of finding an appropriate accommodation. The members of the group are then notified to approve the specific accommodation selected according to his/her proportion. Once 100% of the group allocation is approved, the platform makes the booking reservation”)
In regards to claim 7, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 1. Bayer does not explicitly disclose, however Hays, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein determining that the booking is still available includes checking a database of bookings and determining from data in the database when the booking is still available. (Para. 39) (“The process of booking a reserved itinerary may include checking the inventory database 20 for availability (i.e. determining the booking is still available including checking a database of bookings) of the products identified by the reserved itinerary, e.g., … room vacancies in a hotel, etc. … If the requested products are available (i.e. determining from data in the database when the booking is still available), the products may be booked”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group travel system of Bayer with transaction processing of Hays in order to improve the accuracy and speed of completing online transactions. (Hays – Para. 3)
In regards to claim 8, Bayer discloses a system for split rental of a property, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory soring instructions that when executed cause the processor to: (Para. 14, Claim 11) (“Systems and methods described herein relate to facilitating real-time (or near real-time) approval for individual members for group reservations and payments for a reservation via an online marketplace for travel (e.g., accommodations, flights, car rental, tours, and so forth). This allows individuals of a group of people to collectively make and pay for a booking on the online marketplace at the time of booking.” “at least one processor; and a computer-readable medium coupled with the at least one processor, the computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the server computer to perform operations comprising:”)
The remainder of this claim is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
In regards to claim 10, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
In regards to claim 11, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
In regards to claim 13, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
In regards to claim 14, Bayer in view of Hays disclose the limitations of claim 8. The limitations of this claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bayer.
In regards to claim 16, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 15. Zhang does not explicitly disclose, however Bayer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses further comprising booking the selected travel destination (of Zhang) within the travel site. (Para. 66) (“Embodiments described herein allow one or more users the ability to book a reservation and charge payment devices associated with multiple users in a group within the parameters authorized by the group.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group travel planner of Zhang with the group travel system of Bayer in order to more efficiently allow individuals of a group to collectively make and pay for a booking on an online market place. (Bayer – Para. 14)
In regards to claim 17, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 16. Zhang does not explicitly disclose, however Bayer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses splitting the cost of booking the selected travel destination within the travel site. (Para. 66, 72) (“Embodiments described herein allow one or more users the ability to book a reservation and charge payment devices associated with multiple users in a group within the parameters authorized by the group.” “upon approving the request to book the trip item, the server computing system automatically charges a payment device for each user in the group according to the parameters related to the group trip. For example, the server computing system would automatically charge the first user for 50% percent of the total amount and the second user 50% of the total amount. In the Paris example above, traveler A would be charged $575 and traveler B would be charged $575. In this way the booking is paid for by the group at the time of booking”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the group travel planner of Zhang with the group travel system of Bayer in order to more efficiently allow individuals of a group to collectively make and pay for a booking on an online market place. (Bayer – Para. 14)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lowe – US 20200050976 – discloses generating and managing split rental of a property using similar methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon S Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628