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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “terminal support unit”, “gold course interoperation unit”, “airline interoperation unit”, “product interoperation unit”, “a reservation processing unit”, “search unit”, “reservation request unit”, “reservation confirmation unit”, “golf data collection module”, “golf data provision module”, “golf course reservation module”, “flight schedule data collection module”, “flight schedule data provision module”, “airline ticket reservation module”, “record update module”, “AI product recommendation module”, “travel information storage module”, “data storage module”, “learning unit”, “collection unit”, “processing unit”, “distribution unit”, “search module”, “GNR matching module”, “classification module”, “combination module”, “encryption module”, “public setting module” and “distribution module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The disclosure of the application does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of the ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-11 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receive a service request related to a golf trip in response to a request from one or more user terminals and to transmit a response to the request; collect golf course data, comprising one or more bookable golf course schedules, in real time from one or more golf course operating servers and to transmit one or more golf course data matched based on search of the user terminal; collect flight schedule data, comprising one or more bookable flight schedules, in real time from one or more airline servers and to transmit one or more flight schedule data matched with golf course data selected by a user as a reply; collect travel products necessary for a travel destination in real time from one or more travel product company servers and to transmit one or more travel product data matched with the golf course data or the flight schedule data selected by the user as a reply; generate one golf trip reservation process by combining one golf course data, one or more flight schedule data, or travel product data selected by the user; and store information related to a generated golf reservation process by using a golfer name record for each user as an identifier.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, “receive”, “collect”, “collect”, “collect”, “generate” and “store” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually book a golf course and a travel package for a user upon request.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional elements to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-11, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-11 define how golf reservation is processed and planned which further describes the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecalvo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0181996) in view of Rodenberg (U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0202376).
As to claim 1, Montecalvo teaches a system comprising:
a terminal support unit configured to receive a service request related to a golf trip in response to a request from one or more user terminals and to transmit a response to the request;(para 78, 80, 99 and 112)
a golf course interoperation unit configured to collect golf course data, comprising one or more bookable golf course schedules, in real time from one or more golf course operating servers and to transmit one or more golf course data matched based on search of the user terminal;(para 77-78, 80, 99 and 112)
an airline interoperation unit configured to collect flight schedule data, comprising one or more bookable flight schedules, in real time from one or more airline servers and to transmit one or more flight schedule data matched with golf course data selected by a user as a reply;(para 98, 122 and 126)
other product interoperation unit configured to collect travel products necessary for a travel destination in real time from one or more travel product company servers and to transmit one or more travel product data matched with the golf course data or the flight schedule data selected by the user as a reply; (para 62 and 77)
a reservation processing unit configured to generate one golf trip reservation process by combining one golf course data, one or more flight schedule data, or travel product data selected by the user; (para 77-78, 98 and 126, fig. 4F)
Montecalvo does not teach:
a database configured to store information related to a generated golf reservation process by using a golfer name record for each user as an identifier.
However, Rodenberg teaches:
a database configured to store information related to a generated golf reservation process by using a golfer name record for each user as an identifier. (para 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to store a golfer name record in Montecalvo as taught by Rodenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodenberg that doing so would allow the user to easily search all golf courses and keep track of scores.
As to claim 2, Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Montecalvo further teaches:
wherein: the user terminal accesses the terminal support unit through a user interface provided by an application or web page mounted thereon, and the application comprises: a search unit configured to request search from the terminal support unit through an input keyword and to receive results of the search related to one or more golf courses, flights, or travel products; (fig. 4C and para 104)
a reservation request unit configured to request reservations for one or more golf courses and other travel products other than the golf courses by transferring the selection of the user for the results of the search to the terminal support unit; (fig. 4C and para 112, 114)
a reservation confirmation unit configured to request reservation completion details from the terminal support unit, receive a response to the request, and display the response, in response to a request from the user. (fig. 4H)
As to claim 3, Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Montecalvo further teaches:
wherein the golf course interoperation unit comprises: a golf data collection module configured to collect the golf course data, comprising places, locations, available tee times, and a number of persons, from one or more golf course servers that are managed in golf courses being open for business in each area or country in real time; (para 112 and 114)
a golf data provision module configured to provide the collected golf course data to the user terminal through the terminal support unit; (para 112 and 114)
a golf course reservation module configured to request reservations for a corresponding golf course server when reservations for any one golf course are requested by the user terminal and to receive results of the reservations from the golf course server. (para 146)
As to claim 4, Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Montecalvo further teaches:
wherein the airline interoperation unit comprises: a flight schedule data collection module configured to collect flight schedule data, comprising hours of operations of flights comprising boarding times and a number of passengers allowed to board, from one or more airline servers that are managed in airlines being open for business in each area or country in real time; (para 98 and 107)
a flight schedule data provision module configured to extract one or more collected flight schedule data based on a schedule of the selected golf course data, among the collected flight schedule data, and to provide the extracted flight schedule data to the user terminal through the terminal support unit; (para 98, 107 and 122)
an airline ticket reservation module configured to request reservations for a corresponding airline server when reservations for any one flight are requested by the user terminal and to receive results of the reservations from the airline server. (para 122)
As to claim 5, Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Montecalvo further teaches:
an AI product recommendation module configured to recommend suitable flight schedule data and travel product data to the user terminal on the basis of a selected golf course with respect to a travel product that is able to be added to a travel schedule after the golf course is selected. (para 98, 107 and 122)
Montecalvo does not teach:
wherein the reservation processing unit comprises: a record update module configured to sequentially record reservation histories on the golfer name record of a user who requests reservations when each interoperation unit receives a response to a reservation request;
However, Rodenberg teaches:
wherein the reservation processing unit comprises: a record update module configured to sequentially record reservation histories on the golfer name record of a user who requests reservations when each interoperation unit receives a response to a reservation request; (para 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to store a golfer name record in Montecalvo as taught by Rodenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodenberg that doing so would allow the user to easily search all golf courses and keep track of scores.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecalvo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0181996) in view of Rodenberg (U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0202376), further in view of Kandel et. Al referred herein as Kandel (U.S. Patent No. 10,824,606).
As to claim 6, Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Montecalvo does not teach:
wherein the database comprises: a travel information storage module configured to store travel information, comprising all of recordable histories that are generated from a start to an end of the golf trip, in the golfer name record by setting the travel information in association with the golfer name record;
However, Rodenberg teaches:
wherein the database comprises: a travel information storage module configured to store travel information, comprising all of recordable histories that are generated from a start to an end of the golf trip, in the golfer name record by setting the travel information in association with the golfer name record; (para 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to store a golfer name record in Montecalvo as taught by Rodenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodenberg that doing so would allow the user to easily search all golf courses and keep track of scores.
Montecalvo and Rodenberg do not teach:
a data storage module configured to store raw data generated in all of procedures related to the golf trip comprising the travel information and big data obtained by processing the raw data.
However, Kandel teaches:
a data storage module configured to store raw data generated in all of procedures related to the record comprising the information and big data obtained by processing the raw data. (col 4 lines 20-48)
Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach a system for reserving a golf trip and storing a golfer record.
The sole difference between the Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg and the claimed subject matter is that the system does not explicitly state how the data is stored.
Kandel disclose a system for storing records that constitutes of raw and big data.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the records of Kandel for the travel record account of Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 7, Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg, further in view of Kandel teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Montecalvo further teaches:
a learning unit configured to extract one or more travel products corresponding to propensity information of each user based on travel information of the user, which is recorded in association with the golfer name record through a machine learning algorithm, and to provide the one or more travel products to the AI product recommendation module. (para 98, 107 and 122)
As to claim 8, Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg do not teach:
a big data system configured to serve, as bigdata, data that are set and stored in association with the golfer name record, and the big data system comprises: a collection unit configured to extract raw data that are set and stored in association with the golfer name record from a database or one or more supplier servers or to receive the raw data by requesting the raw data; a processing unit configured to generate distribution data having a tradable form by parsing, combining, and encrypting the collected raw data; and a distribution unit configured to provide the distribution data to the one or more supplier servers according to agreements based on a transaction range.
However, Kendal teaches:
a big data system configured to serve, as bigdata, data that are set and stored in association with the golfer name record, and the big data system comprises: a collection unit configured to extract raw data that are set and stored in association with the golfer name record from a database or one or more supplier servers or to receive the raw data by requesting the raw data; a processing unit configured to generate distribution data having a tradable form by parsing, combining, and encrypting the collected raw data; and a distribution unit configured to provide the distribution data to the one or more supplier servers according to agreements based on a transaction range. (col 4 lines 20-48)
Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach a system for reserving a golf trip and storing a golfer record.
The sole difference between the Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg and the claimed subject matter is that the system does not explicitly state how the data is stored.
Kandel disclose a system for storing records that constitutes of raw and big data.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the records of Kandel for the travel record account of Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 9, Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg, further in view of Kandel teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Mantecalvo does not teach:
wherein the collection unit comprises: a search module configured to search for and extract the raw data comprising one or more of user information, a golf tee time, and a golf course location; and a GNR matching module configured to identify the golfer name record set in association with the raw data and to collect anterior and posterior raw data collected as a field of one golfer name record.
However, Rodenberg teaches:
wherein the collection unit comprises: a search module configured to search for and extract the raw data comprising one or more of user information, a golf tee time, and a golf course location; and a GNR matching module configured to identify the golfer name record set in association with the raw data and to collect anterior and posterior raw data collected as a field of one golfer name record. (para 37 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to store a golfer name record in Montecalvo as taught by Rodenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rodenberg that doing so would allow the user to easily search all golf courses and keep track of scores.
As to claim 10, Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg, further in view of Kandel teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg do not teach:
wherein the processing unit comprises: a classification module configured to classify the collected raw data according to data categories; a combination module configured to generate one unit distribution data by combining a plurality of data that are classified according to an identical category and that have a minimum unit; and an encryption module configured to perform encryption on one or more of a plurality of data pieces that form one unit distribution data.
However, Kendal teaches:
wherein the processing unit comprises: a classification module configured to classify the collected raw data according to data categories; a combination module configured to generate one unit distribution data by combining a plurality of data that are classified according to an identical category and that have a minimum unit; and an encryption module configured to perform encryption on one or more of a plurality of data pieces that form one unit distribution data. (col 4 lines 20-48)
Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach a system for reserving a golf trip and storing a golfer record.
The sole difference between the Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg and the claimed subject matter is that the system does not explicitly state how the data is stored.
Kandel disclose a system for storing records that constitutes of raw and big data.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the records of Kandel for the travel record account of Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 11, Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg, further in view of Kandel teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Mantecalvo in view of Rodenberg do not teach:
wherein the distribution unit comprises: a public setting module configured to determine whether to open a plurality of distribution data according to a preset public range; and a distribution module configured to transmit the classified distribution data to a corresponding supplier server or to provide a public API.
However, Kendal teaches:
wherein the distribution unit comprises: a public setting module configured to determine whether to open a plurality of distribution data according to a preset public range; and a distribution module configured to transmit the classified distribution data to a corresponding supplier server or to provide a public API. (col 4 lines 20-48)
Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg teach a system for reserving a golf trip and storing a golfer record.
The sole difference between the Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg and the claimed subject matter is that the system does not explicitly state how the data is stored.
Kandel disclose a system for storing records that constitutes of raw and big data.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the records of Kandel for the travel record account of Montecalvo in view of Rodenberg.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights