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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 03/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
While claims using the terms “processing device” and “communication device”, which on first glance may potentially be interpreted as a nonce term. “using a processing device/Communication device” would not meet prong 2 and therefore these terms do not invoke 112(f).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 03/24/2025 is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
Examiner believes the following limitations recites abstract idea.
Receiving … a user selection data … associated with a user, wherein the user selection data corresponds to a user selection in relation to a travel destination;
Generating … a travel report data based on the user selection data, wherein the travel report data corresponds to the travel report in relation to the travel destination, …; and
Transmitting … the travel report data ….
The above limitations, viewed as a group, shows a series of step to collect data, analyze them to generate a travel report related to travel destination, and transmit in ways such as displaying report to user (see at least spec, page 13, lines 15-20, step 5 where pdf file of report is emailed to user). This is following rules or creating interpersonal relationship, which falls into certain methods of organizing human activities. In addition, this is also similar to Electric Power Group’s collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying information, which is mental processes. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are various devices (e.g., user device, communication device, processing device) and the AI module that is used. The devices are clearly generic computer components discussed in high generality (see at least Fig. 2 for high level block diagram showing computing device and various commonly used generic computers such as phone, laptop, desktop in Fig. 1). As of AI module, in this case, specification discussed it as an off the shelf product (e.g., OpenAI, see page 10, lines 15-24) that’s offered a prompt and create output where the output is the report being generated. At this level of bread of merely being “further based on the AI module”, this AI module is an generic computer component. Each of these devices and AI module is merely being invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea on a computer as well as merely generally linking the abstract idea to particular field of use such as computer technology or AI technology. Even viewed in an ordered combination, these additional elements are nothing more than merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, they are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis still apply here, the additional elements, whether viewed individually, or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, they would not provide an inventive concept either. The claims are not eligible.
Claims 2-20 merely uses these additional elements in substantially similar manner with additional detail on the rules being followed or contain substantially similar limitation as the other claims previously discussed. They would be analyzed similarly and arrive at the same conclusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lettovsky (US 20060106655) in view of Chandra (US 20230404539)
As per claim 1, Lettovsky discloses a method of provisioning a travel report, wherein the method comprising:
receiving, using a communication device, a user selection data from a user device associated with a user, wherein the user selection data corresponds to a user selection in relation to a travel destination (see at least Fig. 2, fields 62 are input in relation to Denver (field 60));
generating, using a processing device, a travel report data based on the user selection data, wherein the travel report data corresponds to the travel report in relation to the travel destination (see at least Fig. 3, search result are displayed in response to input shown in Fig. 2),
transmitting, using the communication device, the travel report data to the user device (See Fig. 3 for the displayed result. See Fig. 1 for the client-side element 22. See 0035 for overall computer structure that result generated from processing element 24 is shown as a web element in 22).
Lettovsky does not explicitly disclose using AI module to generate travel data. However, Chandra teaches using AI to generate travel recommendation (see 0109 about using machine learning model including Neural Network. 0044-0047, meeting location is determined based on result of machine learning and meeting locations includes physical location such as outdoor location or coffee shop).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Chandra’s AI usage with Lettovsky’s travel arrangement for multiple parties for the purpose of having a better recommendation based on using new technology.
As per claim 2, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprises:
receiving, using the communication device, a user preference data from the user device, wherein the user preference data corresponds to a user preference in relation to the travel destination (see at least Fig. 2 where flight class is a search criteria);
generating, using the processing device, a destination suggestion data based on the user preference data, wherein the destination suggestion data corresponds to a destination suggestion based on the user preference (see at least Fig. 3, search result are displayed in response to input shown in Fig. 2. Options are presented for user to choose earlier arrival or lower cost visualizing trade-off between price and time),
transmitting, using the communication device, the destination suggestion data to the user device, wherein the user selection data further corresponds to the user selection in relation to the destination suggestion (See Fig. 3 for the displayed result. See Fig. 1 for the client-side element 22. See 0035 for overall computer structure that result generated from processing element 24 is shown as a web element in 22).
Lettovsky does not explicitly disclose using AI module to generate destination suggestion data. However, Chandra teaches using AI to generate travel recommendation (see 0109 about using machine learning model including Neural Network. 0044-0047, meeting location is determined based on result of machine learning and meeting locations includes physical location such as outdoor location or coffee shop).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Chandra’s AI usage with Lettovsky’s travel arrangement for multiple parties for the purpose of having a better recommendation based on using new technology.
As per claim 3, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 2 further comprises storing, using a storage device, the user preference data, wherein the generating of the travel report data is further based on the user preference data (see at least 00398 data in database can be stored in storage element).
As per claim 4, Lettovsky further discloses 4, the method of claim 3 further comprising:
generating, using the processing device, a user query data based on each of the user selection data and the user preference data (see at least Fig. 2 where flight class and origination are two search criteria);
transmitting, using the communication device, the user query data to a travel database (see at least Fig. 1 where a scheduling engine and pricing engine is used externally. See 0040 for detail); and
receiving, using the communication device, a destination data from the travel database based on the user query data, wherein the destination data corresponds to a data in relation to the travel destination, wherein the generating of the travel report data is further based on the destination data (see at least Fig. 3, flight arrival times are shown).
As per claim 5, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 3 further comprising:
determining, using the processing device, a modification in an amenity associated with the travel destination in relation to the travel report (see at least Fig. 2, all search options such as service class or origination location can be changed);
generating, using the processing device, a modified travel report data based on the determining, wherein the modified travel report data corresponds to the travel report corrected to account for the modification, comprises the modified travel report data (see at least Fig. 3, further see Fig. 4 regarding options being displayed based on choosing a different flight option).
Regarding using AI module, please see the rejection above as the rationale to combine is the same.
Examiner notes while claim is broad enough to encompass generating search results using different parameters, Lettovsky nevertheless also discloses modifying travel itinerary suggestions when changes occur, which is taught at least in 0043.
As per claim 6, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user selection data comprises at least one of a destination name data and a travel date data, wherein the destination name data corresponds to a name of the travel destination, wherein the travel date data corresponds to a date in relation to a user travel to the travel destination (see at least Fig. 2, destination can be entered as Denver in field 60 and arrival date can be selected as a dropdown menu in field 76).
As per claim 7, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the user preference data comprises at least one of a geographical region preference data, a budget preference data, an activity preference data and a user-interest preference data, wherein the geographical region preference data corresponds the user preference in relation to a geographical region, wherein the budget preference data corresponds to the user preference in relation to a budget associated with the travel destination, wherein the activity preference data corresponds to the user preference in relation to an activity associated with the travel destination, wherein the user-interest preference data corresponds to the user preference in relation to a user interest associated with the travel destination (see at least Lettovsky, Fig. 2, 60 and 62 shows preference regarding origin and destination, which are geographical region; 66 shows service class preference as well as 82 shows lowest fair preference, which are budget preference; see also 0050 where more search option of Fig. 2, item 84 would allow further specifying things like ground transportation such as car rental requirement, as well as hotel preference (activity preference and activity preference)).
As per claim 8, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the activity preference data comprises at least one of a cultural activity data, adventure activity data and a relaxation activity data, wherein the cultural activity data corresponds to a cultural activity associated with the travel destination, wherein the adventure activity data corresponds to an adventure activity associated with the travel destination, wherein the relaxation activity data corresponds to a relation activity associated with the travel destination (see at least 0107, travel extra such as cultural event (cultural activity), “sporting event” (adventure), “shopping opportunities with recommended merchant” (relaxation activity) can be suggested. These suggestion can be based on ”information with respect to the user’s interest to provide better suggestions to the user”).
Claims 11-18 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 1-8 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lettovsky (US 20060106655) in view of Chandra (US 20230404539), further in view of Advani (US 20150127486).
As per claim 9, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the user-interest preference data comprises at least one of a culinary tour preference data and a
Lettovsky discloses suggesting cultural event but does not explicitly disclose a historical tour preference. Advani teaches collecting user interest regarding historical exploration preference (0030, interest regarding history for upcoming exploration session is collected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Advani’s preference data collection regarding history with Lettovsky’s travel recommendation system for the purpose of providing better recommendation for user.
Claim 19 contains limitation substantially similar to claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lettovsky (US 20060106655) in view of Chandra (US 20230404539), further in view of Turk (US 20150058047).
As per claim 10, Lettovsky further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the travel report data comprises at least one of
Lettovsky does not explicitly disclose historical and health/safety data as part of report. Turk teaches a destination insight report that includes health/safety and historical data (See Fig. 10 where history (authoritarian rules, among other things) as well as safety advice are shown in section 280 and 282).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of present invention to combine Turk’s travel destination insight with Lettovsky’s travel arrangement system for the purpose of reducing risky travel-related incidents (Turk: 0006).
Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 10 as it contains substantially similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628