DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 19/105,998 filed on 02/24/2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo – “configured to obtaining” which should recite as “configured to obtain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “the request acquisition unit, configured to obtain …”, “the calculation group construction unit, configured to construct …”, “the freight rate data query unit, configured to obtain[unit, configured to, … filter …”, and “the freight rate data combination unit, configured to obtain …” in Claim 7 and “the rule filtration sub-unit, configured to, …, perform …” and “the protocol filtration sub-unit, configured to, …, perform ...” in Claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that these generic placeholders won’t invoke 112(f) if the apparatus includes such as “a processor” to perform these functions.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for determining a freight rate (flight ticket rate)), “a machine” (an apparatus and an electronic device for determining a freight rate (flight ticket rate)), and “an article of manufacture” (a computer-readable storage medium for determining a freight rate (flight ticket rate)) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-10, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A freight rate determination method, comprising:
obtaining a freight rate query request for a first flight route, wherein the freight rate query request involves a plurality of legs of the first flight route;
constructing at least one freight rate calculation group based on the freight rate query request, wherein one freight rate calculation group corresponds to at least one leg;
obtaining freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group by querying from …, wherein one freight rate calculation group comprises at least one piece of the freight rate data;
for any one freight rate calculation group, filtering each piece of the freight rate data based on limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and
obtaining at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on …, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations and “Mathematical Concepts” such as mathematical relationships/calculations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a database” and “a Column algorithm”. The additional element of “a Column algorithm” represents mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as described in Paragraph [0058] of the specification. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the for any one freight rate calculation group, filtering each piece of the freight rate data based on the limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for any one freight rate calculation group, performing rule filtration on each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group based on the limit information in the freight rate query request and the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain a first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, performing protocol filtration on each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group based on the agent information in the freight rate query request and the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain the at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein the for any one freight rate calculation group, performing rule filtration on each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group based on the limit information in the freight rate query request and the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain a first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for any one freight rate calculation group, dividing each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group into freight rate data groups of different rule classes based on the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, wherein the rule identifiers of the freight rate calculation groups of the same rule class are the same, and the rule identifiers of the freight rate calculation groups of different rule classes are different; and performing querying based on different rule identifiers to obtain a corresponding preset limit condition, and when the limit information in the freight rate query request meets the preset limit condition, obtaining the freight rate data group of the corresponding rule class, to obtain the first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group” in Claim 3, and by defining “wherein the for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, performing protocol filtration on each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group based on the agent information in the freight rate query request and the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain the at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, dividing each piece of the freight rate data of the first freight rate data group into freight rate data groups of different protocol classes based on the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group, wherein the freight rate protocol identifiers of the freight rate data groups of the same protocol class are the same, and the freight rate protocol identifiers of the freight rate data groups of different protocol class are different; and performing querying based on different freight rate protocol identifiers to obtain a corresponding preset agent set, and when the agent information in the freight rate query request falls within a range of the preset agent set, obtaining the freight rate data group of the corresponding protocol class, to obtain the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group” in Claim 4, and by defining “wherein after based on the first freight rate combination, modifying any one column of data into the next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain the plurality of second freight rate combinations through extension, wherein modified data is defined as the extended column of the corresponding second freight rate combination, the method further comprising: for any one second freight rate combination, verifying a combination rule corresponding to the second freight rate combination; when the combination rule corresponding to the second freight rate combination passes the verification, obtaining the second freight rate combination; and when the combination rule corresponding to the second freight rate combination fails the verification, abandoning the second freight rate combination” in Claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the following limitations:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the obtaining at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on … comprises:
for any one freight rate calculation group, based on a price in each piece of the corresponding target freight rate data, sorting and numbering each piece of the target freight rate data based on a sequence from small to large;
for any one freight rate calculation group, selecting target freight rate data which has a lowest price from the freight rate calculation group, and obtaining a first freight rate combination by combining the target freight rate data which has a lowest price based on …, wherein the first freight rate combination comprises a plurality of columns of data, and one column of data corresponds to the target freight rate data which has the lowest price in one freight rate calculation group;
based on the first freight rate combination, modifying any one column of data into a next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of second freight rate combinations through extension, wherein modified data is defined as an extended column of the corresponding second freight rate combination; and
for any one second freight rate combination, starting from a position of the extended column, modifying any one column of data into the next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of third freight rate combinations through extension, and so on, until the number of the obtained freight rate combinations is equal to a preset combination number threshold.
Claim 5 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 5 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 5 recites an additional element – “a Column algorithm”. This additional element represents mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than representing mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, this additional element amounts to no more than representing mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the following limitations:
A freight rate determination apparatus, comprising:
…, wherein
…, configured to obtain a freight rate query request for a first flight route, wherein the freight rate query request involves a plurality of legs of the first flight route;
…, configured to construct at least one freight rate calculation group based on the freight rate query request, wherein one freight rate calculation group corresponds to at least one leg;
…, configured to obtain[
…, configured to, for any one freight rate calculation group, filter each piece of the freight rate data based on limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and
…, configured to obtain at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on …, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 7 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations and “Mathematical Concepts” such as mathematical relationships/calculations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites additional elements – “a request acquisition unit”, “a calculation group construction unit”, “a freight rate data query unit, a freight rate data filtration unit”, “a freight rate data combination unit”, “a database”, and “a Column algorithm”. The additional element of “a Column algorithm” represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as described in Paragraph [0058] of the specification. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein … comprises … and …;
…, configured to, for any one freight rate calculation group, perform rule filtration on each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group based on the limit information in the freight rate query request and the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain a first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and
…, configured to, for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any freight rate calculation group, perform protocol filtration on each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group based on the agent information in the freight rate query request and the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain the at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group.
Claim 8 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 7 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 8 recites additional elements – “the freight rate data filtration unit”, “a rule filtration sub-unit”, and “a protocol filtration sub-unit”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
…:
obtain a freight rate query request for a first flight route, wherein the freight rate query request involves a plurality of legs of the first flight route;
construct at least one freight rate calculation group based on the freight rate query request, wherein one freight rate calculation group corresponds to at least one leg;
obtain freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group by querying from …, wherein one freight rate calculation group comprises at least one piece of the freight rate data;
for any one freight rate calculation group, filter each piece of the freight rate data based on limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and
obtain at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on …, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 9 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations and “Mathematical Concepts” such as mathematical relationships/calculations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional elements – “a computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program implements following actions when being executed by a processor”, “a database”, and “a Column algorithm”. The additional element of “a Column algorithm” represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as described in Paragraph [0058] of the specification. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
… to execute following actions:
obtain a freight rate query request for a first flight route, wherein the freight rate query request involves a plurality of legs of the first flight route;
construct at least one freight rate calculation group based on the freight rate query request, wherein one freight rate calculation group corresponds to at least one leg;
obtain freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group by querying from …, wherein one freight rate calculation group comprises at least one piece of the freight rate data;
for any one freight rate calculation group, filter each piece of the freight rate data based on limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group; and
obtain at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on …, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 10 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations and “Mathematical Concepts” such as mathematical relationships/calculations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites additional elements – “an electronic device, comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory and a bus connected to the processor, wherein the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the processor is configured to call a program instruction in the memory”, “a database”, and “a Column algorithm”. The additional element of “a Column algorithm” represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) and as described in Paragraph [0058] of the specification. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a freight rate (flight ticket rate) determination process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer-readable storage medium” of Claim 9 encompasses signals per se. Examiner notes that “computer-readable storage medium” recited in this claim is not lexicographically defined in the original specification. Since “computer readable storage medium” is not explicitly defined in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably interpret the medium, in light of the specification, to include transitory signals. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 9 encompasses signals which is not within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 I. It is suggested that Claim 9 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer-readable storage medium to overcome this rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0161636 A1; hereinafter "Williams") in view of Benzinger et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0183512 A1; hereinafter "Benzinger") and Pachon et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2010/0082394 A1; hereinafter "Pachon").
Regarding Claim 1, Williams teaches a freight rate determination method, comprising: obtaining a freight rate query request for a first flight route, wherein the freight rate query request involves a plurality of legs of the first flight route (See “(i) receive a request for a price for goods or services, such as airfares, together with parameters defining those goods or services, including one or more of the following: activity type, such as airfare, …; date range; destination; origin; …; any other user defined preference;” in Paragraph [0063], “In a search at the server, a user may specify a start location (which could be an individual airport, a city including a plurality of airports, or a country including a plurality of airports, for example). In a search at the server, a user may specify a destination location (which could be an individual airport, a city including a plurality of airports, or a country including a plurality of airports, for example).” in Paragraph [0229], Figs. 9-10 and 12); constructing at least one freight rate calculation group based on the freight rate query request, wherein one freight rate calculation group corresponds to at least one leg; obtaining freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group by querying from a database, wherein one freight rate calculation group comprises at least one piece of the freight rate data (See “The server may be one wherein for (ii) the server is arranged to: (a) obtain historical prices from a computer data store; (b) group the historical prices by category; (c) derive statistics for each group; (d) store for each group a classifier including the derived statistics, and (e) identify groups with stored classifiers to which the requested price corresponds.” Paragraphs [0067]- [0072] and “The server may be one wherein for (iii) the server is arranged to: calculate a set of estimates for the requested price over the specified date range using statistics from the stored classifiers corresponding to the identified groups.” in Paragraph [0073]); for any one freight rate calculation group, filtering each piece of the freight rate data based on limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group (See “Classifiers can only be used to price existing quotes, so candidate quotes must be evaluated first. Candidates are combinations of every applicable airport pairs, date (dates pair), airline and agent available for queried route. A list is generated based on the process inputs and a route operators' database.” in Paragraph [0179], “These features have been derived by analysing all the fares listed in FROP (Fare Rule Output Product, from ATPCO (the Airline Tariff Publishing Company)) and determining which rules applied to the largest number of fares. For example, 54% of fares have a minimum stay rule, and 31% of all fares have a minimum stay rule requiring that Saturday night is spent at the destination. Therefore, the feature is likely to be a useful feature for classification on the basis of price.” in Paragraph [0134], “An example of a fare is a pricing contract, which specifies a price (base fare) for a service provided by the carrier, defined by service class, class type (Y, Q, J, M, H, etc) and type of trip (one-way, round-trip, multi-city, round-the-world (RTW)).” in Paragraph [0240], “In an example, each fare comes with an attached number of rules and restrictions that apply to it--think of a fare as a contract that is 20-30 pages long, rather than just an excel raw (a spreadsheet or CSV file). So rather than thinking of a fare as a row in a big excel spreadsheet with columns indicating which features a fare has, instead one should think of a fare as a complex thing in its own right with many parameters and restrictions and therefore rather more like a contract. The fare defines who, when, and how one can use the fare--passenger type, when the fare is applicable (NVB, NVA--not valid before, not valid after) and a whole lot of other restrictions. A fare could be a public fare (accessible to every reseller) or a private fare (accessible to specified reseller/seller).” in Paragraph [0241], and Figs. 9 and 10).
Williams does not explicitly teach; however, Benzinger teaches obtaining at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on a … algorithm, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group (See “The fare table 16 includes fares and rules for a plurality of travel markets, wherein a travel market includes more or more travel segments. The fare table 16 may include various rules associated with each fare (e.g., advanced purchase, maximum/minimum stay, date/time restrictions, etc.), combinability rules, and/or routing rules. Combinability rules specify how a fare can be combined with other fares, while routing rules specify whether the flight must be nonstop or connecting and, if so, the connecting cities. A fare is applicable for a travel market if the fare satisfies each of the rules associated with the flight. The fare table 16 may include various data organized in a tabular format that is stored in the memory 12, and one or more portions of the fare table may be stored in a separate memory or particular location within the memory for faster access.” in Paragraph [0030], “With respect to combinability rules, fares can be encapsulated into various pricing unit types such as round trip, open jaw, circle trip, and one way. As shown in FIG. 3, a round trip pricing unit includes a direct connection between an O/D for the departure and return flights. The open jaw pricing unit includes a departure flight and at least one additional flight, but the final flight does not return to the origin location. In addition, the circle trip pricing unit includes a departure flight and a plurality of additional flights, with the final flight returning to the origin location. The one-way pricing unit includes a single O/D.” in Paragraph [0031], and “The fare table 16 may be accessed to determine if the fares are applicable so that an estimated seat value (ESV) may be estimated for one or more of the applicable fares (block 28). Thus, once the availability for one or more flights has been provided, one or more available fares within the fare table 16 are located. For example, an available fare includes a valid and open booking code. Those fares that do not include a valid and open booking code may be skipped. In addition, an applicable fare satisfies one or more rules within the fare table 14. For example, a request for a flight within 14 days of departure may not satisfy an advance purchase requirement, while one round trip flight may not be combinable with another round trip flight despite the availability of the flights. Those inbound and outbound flights having associated fares that satisfy the associated rules within the fare table 16 and that are combinable are combined to determine the ESV for each itinerary. The accuracy of ESV is influenced by several factors, such as seat availability, the scope of the fares, the extent of the fare rule data, and the application of fare rules.” in Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of providing airfare price estimates of Williams to include obtaining at least one freight rate combination by combining each piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each freight rate calculation group based on an algorithm, wherein each of the freight rate combination comprises one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to each of the at least one freight rate calculation group, as taught by, in order to reduce the search space and eliminate duplicate effort to produce desirable itineraries [Paragraph [0008] of Benzinger).
Williams in view of Benzinger does not explicitly teach; however, Pachon teaches Column algorithm (See “In step 812, one or more constraints can be generated for the optimization model. For example, the column generation algorithm can insert the received minimum and/or maximum optional flights in an equation such as that previously described above.” in Paragraph [0130], “In step 814, an optimized set of flights that include at least the minimum number of the optional flights and at most the maximum number of optional flights can be output. For example, the column generation algorithm 704 can generate an optimized solution for the scheduling problem while adhering to fixed constraints set by a constrain equation. These results can then, for example, be integrated into a flight schedule and published.” in Paragraph [0131], and “In other implementations, the minimum/maximum number of optional flights is implemented using penalty terms and the appropriate slack values. The column generation algorithm can then generate a flight schedule that favors, but does not require, the inclusion of the max/min number of optional flights.” in Paragraph [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tabular format with Column algorithm, as taught by Pachon, in order provide faster query speeds in obtaining airfare price/freight rate.
Claim 9 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 9 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 9 is considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Claim 10 is also a system (electronic device) claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 10 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 10 is considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, Williams in view of Benzinger and Pachon teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Williams also teaches wherein the for any one freight rate calculation group, filtering each piece of the freight rate data based on the limit information and agent information in the freight rate query request, as well as a rule identifier and a freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for any one freight rate calculation group, performing rule filtration on each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group based on the limit information in the freight rate query request and the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain a first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group (See “These features have been derived by analysing all the fares listed in FROP (Fare Rule Output Product, from ATPCO (the Airline Tariff Publishing Company)) and determining which rules applied to the largest number of fares. For example, 54% of fares have a minimum stay rule, and 31% of all fares have a minimum stay rule requiring that Saturday night is spent at the destination. Therefore, the feature is likely to be a useful feature for classification on the basis of price.” in Paragraph [0134] and “For example, fare class tells engines there is a rule attached, which is Category 15 (Sales restrictions), which, after digging into the Category Data Tables pulls additional information on it--what type, what are the rules and restrictions.” in Paragraph [0252]); and for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, performing protocol filtration on each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group based on the agent information in the freight rate query request and the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain the at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group (See “An example of a fare is a pricing contract, which specifies a price (base fare) for a service provided by the carrier, defined by service class, class type (Y, Q, J, M, H, etc) and type of trip (one-way, round-trip, multi-city, round-the-world (RTW)).” in Paragraph [0240] and “In an example, each fare comes with an attached number of rules and restrictions that apply to it--think of a fare as a contract that is 20-30 pages long, rather than just an excel raw (a spreadsheet or CSV file). So rather than thinking of a fare as a row in a big excel spreadsheet with columns indicating which features a fare has, instead one should think of a fare as a complex thing in its own right with many parameters and restrictions and therefore rather more like a contract. The fare defines who, when, and how one can use the fare--passenger type, when the fare is applicable (NVB, NVA--not valid before, not valid after) and a whole lot of other restrictions. A fare could be a public fare (accessible to every reseller) or a private fare (accessible to specified reseller/seller).” in Paragraph [0241]).
Claims 7-8 are system claims corresponding to method Claims 1-2. All of the limitations in Claims 7-8 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claims 1-2. Accordingly, Claims 7-8 are considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-2, respectively set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3, Williams in view of Benzinger and Pachon teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Williams also teaches wherein the for any one freight rate calculation group, performing rule filtration on each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group based on the limit information in the freight rate query request and the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain a first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for any one freight rate calculation group, dividing each piece of the freight rate data of the freight rate calculation group into freight rate data groups of different rule classes based on the rule identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, wherein the rule identifiers of the freight rate calculation groups of the same rule class are the same, and the rule identifiers of the freight rate calculation groups of different rule classes are different (See “An example of a fare is a pricing contract, which specifies a price (base fare) for a service provided by the carrier, defined by service class, class type (Y, Q, J, M, H, etc) and type of trip (one-way, round-trip, multi-city, round-the-world (RTW)).” in Paragraph [0240], “In an example, each fare comes with an attached number of rules and restrictions that apply to it--think of a fare as a contract that is 20-30 pages long, rather than just an excel raw (a spreadsheet or CSV file). So rather than thinking of a fare as a row in a big excel spreadsheet with columns indicating which features a fare has, instead one should think of a fare as a complex thing in its own right with many parameters and restrictions and therefore rather more like a contract. The fare defines who, when, and how one can use the fare--passenger type, when the fare is applicable (NVB, NVA--not valid before, not valid after) and a whole lot of other restrictions. A fare could be a public fare (accessible to every reseller) or a private fare (accessible to specified reseller/seller).” in Paragraph [0241], and “Rules are calculated by a pricing engine in a very strict order of rule records, tables, and sub-tables. If no specific rule records are found, then there is a General Rule that governs them all.” in Paragraph [0247]); and performing querying based on different rule identifiers to obtain a corresponding preset limit condition, and when the limit information in the freight rate query request meets the preset limit condition, obtaining the freight rate data group of the corresponding rule class, to obtain the first freight rate data group corresponding to the freight rate calculation group (See “A user may specify a class of ticket (eg. economy, premium economy, business class or first class, for example).” in Paragraph [0229], “Output search results may include a list of flights which satisfy the search criteria. A graphical indicator (eg. a slider bar) may be provided to limit the outbound flight departure time range. A graphical indicator (eg. a slider bar) may be provided to limit the return flight departure time range. A selectable tab may be provided such that flights may be arranged in order of increasing cost. A selectable tab may be provided such that flights may be arranged in order of increasing travel time. A selectable tab may be provided such that flights may be arranged in order of airline name in alphabetical order. An example user interface is shown in FIG. 10.” in Paragraph [0230], and Figs. 9-10 and 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Williams in view of Benzinger and Pachon teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. Williams also teaches wherein the for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, performing protocol filtration on each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group based on the agent information in the freight rate query request and the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the freight rate calculation group, to obtain the at least one piece of the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group comprises: for the first freight rate data group corresponding to any one freight rate calculation group, dividing each piece of the freight rate data of the first freight rate data group into freight rate data groups of different protocol classes based on the freight rate protocol identifier of each piece of the freight rate data in the first freight rate data group, wherein the freight rate protocol identifiers of the freight rate data groups of the same protocol class are the same, and the freight rate protocol identifiers of the freight rate data groups of different protocol class are different (See “An example of a fare is a pricing contract, which specifies a price (base fare) for a service provided by the carrier, defined by service class, class type (Y, Q, J, M, H, etc) and type of trip (one-way, round-trip, multi-city, round-the-world (RTW)).” in Paragraph [0240] and “In an example, each fare comes with an attached number of rules and restrictions that apply to it--think of a fare as a contract that is 20-30 pages long, rather than just an excel raw (a spreadsheet or CSV file). So rather than thinking of a fare as a row in a big excel spreadsheet with columns indicating which features a fare has, instead one should think of a fare as a complex thing in its own right with many parameters and restrictions and therefore rather more like a contract. The fare defines who, when, and how one can use the fare--passenger type, when the fare is applicable (NVB, NVA--not valid before, not valid after) and a whole lot of other restrictions. A fare could be a public fare (accessible to every reseller) or a private fare (accessible to specified reseller/seller).” in Paragraph [0241]); and performing querying based on different freight rate protocol identifiers to obtain a corresponding preset agent set, and when the agent information in the freight rate query request falls within a range of the preset agent set, obtaining the freight rate data group of the corresponding protocol class, to obtain the target freight rate data corresponding to the freight rate calculation group (See “Classifiers can only be used to price existing quotes, so candidate quotes must be evaluated first. Candidates are combinations of every applicable airport pairs, date (dates pair), airline and agent available for queried route. A list is generated based on the process inputs and a route operators' database.” in Paragraph [0179]).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed a search of prior art, including all feature limitations of dependent claim 5, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, dependent claim 5 in their entirety; and in particular, “based on the first freight rate combination, modifying any one column of data into a next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of second freight rate combinations through extension, wherein modified data is defined as an extended column of the corresponding second freight rate combination; and for any one second freight rate combination, starting from a position of the extended column, modifying any one column of data into the next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of third freight rate combinations through extension, and so on, until the number of the obtained freight rate combinations is equal to a preset combination number threshold”.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art is found to be Williams in view of Benzinger and Pachon as described above in 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. However, the references fail to disclose “based on the first freight rate combination, modifying any one column of data into a next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of second freight rate combinations through extension, wherein modified data is defined as an extended column of the corresponding second freight rate combination; and for any one second freight rate combination, starting from a position of the extended column, modifying any one column of data into the next piece of the target freight rate data in the corresponding freight rate calculation group, to obtain a plurality of third freight rate combinations through extension, and so on, until the number of the obtained freight rate combinations is equal to a preset combination number threshold” as recited in Claim 5. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach dependent claim 5.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 5, claim 6 is novel/non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628