DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 19/146,925 filed 7/10/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending. This action is non-final.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) is/are: an obtaining unit, a splitting unit, a construction unit, a combination and generation unit, a price difference calculation unit, a selection unit, and a feedback unit in claim 7; and a splitting sub-unit in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recites the limitation “splitting each date ... to obtain a target date.” It is unclear from the claim language and the specification what function is being performed by the term “splitting each date” and how this splitting is used to obtain a target date. For examination purposes, the term “splitting each date” will be interpreted as generating all of the available flights for each date, and “a target date” will be interpreted as one of the available flight times for each date.
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.
Claim 10 is not rejected under 35 USC § 101 for being “signals per se” because the specific definition of a computer storage medium provided in spec. para. [0171] defines a computer-readable medium as not including transitory media.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 recite a method, an apparatus, an electronic device, and a computer storage medium, respectively, for obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user; splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date; constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates, wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates, and a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates; generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates, wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates; calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit; and feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user; splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date; constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates, wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates, and a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates; generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates, wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates; calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit; and feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not include any additional elements and merely describes the field of use of the abstract idea. Claims 7, 9, and 10 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 7: an air ticket change information processing apparatus, an obtaining unit, a splitting unit, a construction unit, a combination and generation unit, a price difference calculation unit, a selection unit, and a feedback unit; the additional elements of claim 9: an electronic device, one or more processing apparatuses, and a memory; and the additional elements of claim 10: a computer storage medium are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 does not include any additional elements and merely describes the field of use of the abstract idea, and claim 7 as a whole merely describes the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 7: an air ticket change information processing apparatus (described in spec. para. [0135]), an obtaining unit (described in spec. para. [0136]), a splitting unit (described in spec. para. [0137]), a construction unit (described in spec. para. [0138]), a combination and generation unit (described in spec. para. [0140]), a price difference calculation unit (described in spec. para. [0142]), a selection unit (described in spec. para. [0143]), and a feedback unit (described in spec. para. [0144]); the additional elements of claim 9: an electronic device (described in spec. para. [0144]), one or more processing apparatuses (described in spec. para. [0135]), and a memory (described in spec. para. [0168]); and the additional elements of claim 10: a computer storage medium (described in spec. para. [0171]) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 8 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-6 and 8 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claims 8 recites the additional element a splitting sub-unit, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claims 8 recites the additional element a splitting sub-unit (described in spec. para. [0146]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Examiner’s Note: claim 4 is considered novel over the prior art and is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0288973) in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0147951).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Taylor discloses the following limitations:
An air ticket change information processing method, comprising: obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user; [See [0051]; (Fig. 5) Taylor teaches a user interface which allows a user to change segments of a travel itinerary. Specifically, Taylor teaches, after selecting one or more of the change boxes associated with a segment of itinerary 510, a user may click on the change trip button 525 to continue the itinerary change process (i.e., obtaining a change date of at least one flight segment of a current target itinerary selected by a current user). Upon receiving a selection of the change trip button 525, the provider may present the user with segment alternatives.]
splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed (i.e., a preset range based on each of the change dates). Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates, and a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., wherein one of the date units comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Additionally, alternative segment list 720 displays the flight segments 710 according to the time at which they depart and arrive from the origination and destination, respectively (i.e., a sequential order of the target dates conforms to a flight segment order of the corresponding change dates). Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., generating a plurality of candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units based on flight information of each of the target dates). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., wherein one of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to the date unit comprises one target flight in each of the target dates in the date unit, and the target flight on the target date refers to a flight whose flight segment is consistent with that on the change date corresponding to the target date in the target dates). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720. Taylor (Fig. 7B); [0059] further teaches the user interface displaying a fare difference calculated based on the difference in cost of the segment to be changed from the original itinerary and the various fare classes that are associated with the alternative segments (i.e., calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units).]
feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user. [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6 (i.e., feeding back flight information of each of the date units). Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Taylor (Fig. 7B); [0059] further teaches the user interface displaying a fare difference calculated based on the difference in cost of the segment to be changed from the original itinerary and the various fare classes that are associated with the alternative segments (i.e., feeding back ... the price difference). Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720 (i.e., feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user).]
Although Taylor teaches displaying a candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit, Taylor does not explicitly teach selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference either manually or automatically. Therefore, Taylor does not, however Meyer does, disclose the following limitation:
selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit; [See [0073] Meyer teaches that, when presented with two or more different on-demand transportation services, its system compares the pricing for the two or more services and automatically selects the service that has the lowest price (i.e., selecting the candidate flight combination with the lowest price difference from the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units as a final selected flight combination corresponding to the date unit).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the flight selection system of Taylor with the flight selection system of Meyer. By making this combination, the system of Taylor would be able to automatically select the cheapest flight change for a user, thereby simplifying the system by reducing the amount of input a user would need to supply in order to get the best deal on a changed flight.
Regarding claim 6, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user comprises: converting and integrating the flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to obtain a calendar mode change search result, and feeding back the calendar mode change search result to the current user. [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Additionally, alternative segment list 720 displays the flight segments 710 according to the time at which they depart and arrive from the origination and destination, respectively (i.e., wherein the feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user comprises: converting and integrating the flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to obtain a calendar mode change search result, and feeding back the calendar mode change search result to the current user). Taylor (Fig. 7B); [0059] further teaches the user interface displaying a fare difference calculated based on the difference in cost of the segment to be changed from the original itinerary and the various fare classes that are associated with the alternative segments. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
Regarding claim 9, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor further discloses the following limitations:
An electronic device, comprising: one or more processing apparatuses; and a memory having one or more programs stored thereon, wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processing apparatuses, the one or more processing apparatuses implement the air ticket change information processing method according to claim 1. [See [0036-0037]; (Fig. 3, elements 300, 310, 320); Taylor teaches performing its computerized method using a data processing system 300 (i.e., an electronic device) comprising a central processor 310 (i.e., one or more processing apparatuses) and a memory 320. Taylor further teaches that the central processor 310 and the memory 320 are used to respectively execute and store a computer program (i.e., a memory having one or more programs stored thereon, wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processing apparatuses, the one or more processing apparatuses implement the air ticket change information processing method according to claim 1).]
Regarding claim 10, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor further discloses the following limitations:
A computer storage medium, configured to store a program, wherein the program, when executed, is configured to implement the air ticket change information processing method according to claim 1. [See [0037]; [0039]; (Fig. 3, element 335) Taylor teaches that a machine-readable medium used to store an executable computer program which is used to perform the steps of its computerized method.]
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0288973) in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0147951) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0268325).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor does not, however Kim does, explicitly disclose the following limitations:
wherein the splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date comprises: splitting each date within seven days with each of the change dates as a middle date to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date. [See [0134]; (Fig. 8A); Kim teaches presenting a user terminal with information about flights for travel that depart within three days before or after the object selected flight (i.e., splitting each date within seven days with each of the change dates as a middle date to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date). (Examiner’s Note: Even though the reference Kim does not use the exact claim language, a date range between three days before and three days after a given date is considered equivalent to a date range including seven days with the change date as the middle date. This is because if the change date is the middle date of a seven day date range, there will be three dates before the middle date and three dates after the middle date.)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the date range of Taylor in view of Meyer with the date range of Kim. By making this combination, the system of Taylor in view of Meyer would be able to use the previously booked flight date as a starting point for determining reasonable alternate flight dates. Furthermore, a range of three days before or after the previously booked flight date reflects a reasonable window of time that user would be interested in adjusting their previously booked flight.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor does not, however Kim does, explicitly disclose the following limitations:
wherein the splitting each date within a preset range based on each of the change dates to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date comprises: splitting each date within seven days with each of the change dates as a middle date to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date. [See [0134]; (Fig. 8A); Kim teaches presenting a user terminal with information about flights for travel that depart within three days before or after the object selected flight (i.e., splitting each date within seven days with each of the change dates as a middle date to obtain a target date corresponding to the change date). (Examiner’s Note: Even though the reference Kim does not use the exact claim language, a date range between three days before and three days after a given date is considered equivalent to a date range including seven days with the change date as the middle date. This is because if the change date is the middle date of a seven day date range, there will be three dates before the middle date and three dates after the middle date.)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the date range of Taylor in view of Meyer with the date range of Kim. By making this combination, the system of Taylor in view of Meyer would be able to use the previously booked flight date as a starting point for determining reasonable alternate flight dates. Furthermore, a range of three days before or after the previously booked flight date reflects a reasonable window of time that user would be interested in adjusting their previously booked flight.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0288973) in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0147951) in view of Chute (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0304264).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the constructing each date unit by using the target date corresponding to each of the change dates comprises: if there is only one change date, determining each of the target dates corresponding to the change date as one of the date units; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Additionally, alternative segment list 720 displays the flight segments 710 according to the time at which they depart and arrive from the origination and destination, respectively (i.e., wherein the feeding back flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to the current user comprises: converting and integrating the flight information of each of the date units and the price difference of the corresponding final selected flight combination to obtain a calendar mode change search result, and feeding back the calendar mode change search result to the current user). Taylor (Fig. 7B); [0059] further teaches the user interface displaying a fare difference calculated based on the difference in cost of the segment to be changed from the original itinerary and the various fare classes that are associated with the alternative segments. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720.]
if there are a plurality of change dates, combining each of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates to obtain a plurality of date combinations, wherein each of the date combinations comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates; [See [0054]; (Fig. 6) Taylor teaches that the user may interact with the user interface 600 to select a period of time within a day at which the user desires to begin or complete a segment of travel to be changed. Taylor [0055]; (Fig. 7A) further teaches alternative flight segments 710 are displayed so that a user may view the alternatives selected by the provider based on the criteria entered by the user at the user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Segment alternative 710 includes the user's desired date input 715 as entered on user interface 600 of FIG. 6. Additionally, alternative segment list 720 displays the flight segments 710 according to the time at which they depart and arrive from the origination and destination, respectively. Taylor (Fig. 7B); [0059] further teaches the user interface displaying a fare difference calculated based on the difference in cost of the segment to be changed from the original itinerary and the various fare classes that are associated with the alternative segments. Taylor [0058] further teaches that, upon viewing the desirable alternatives, a user may select one of the alternative segments based on one of the provided fare classes by clicking on the fare box associated with the appropriate alternative segment 720. Taylor (Fig. 5, elements 510, 515, 520); [0051] further teaches that this process may be performed for a plurality of trip segments initially booked on a plurality of dates and that changing any of the plurality of initially booked trip segments will result in a different itinerary comprising a combination of alternative segments (i.e., if there are a plurality of change dates, combining each of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates to obtain a plurality of date combinations, wherein each of the date combinations comprises one of the target dates corresponding to each of the change dates).]
Although Taylor in view of Meyer teaches modifying flight reservations according to a customer’s existing reservations and date preferences, Taylor in view of Meyer does not explicitly disclose filtering displayed alternate flights according to what will be possible according to the customer’s existing reservations and date preferences. Therefore, Taylor in view of Meyer does not, however Chute does, disclose the following limitations:
and screening out the date combination in which the sequential order of the comprised target dates conforms to the ... (available times according to the existing reservation) ... of the corresponding change dates from the date combinations as the date unit. [See (Fig. 4B) Chute teaches displaying available timeslots for a reservation during a given date range. Chute [0066] further teaches filtering these displayed available time slots according to current booking data for the customer including date and time availability of the customer.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the alternate flight reservation system of Taylor in view of Meyer with the alternate reservation system of Chute. By making this combination, the alternate flight reservation system of Taylor in view of Meyer would be able to automatically filter out alternate flights which do not comply with the customer’s existing other flight reservations that make up their itinerary. This would helpfully prevent a customer from reserving an alternate flight that conflicts with one of their existing flights.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0288973) in view of Meyer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0147951) in view of Chen (CN 106779117 A).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor in view of Meyer discloses all claim 1 limitations. Taylor further discloses the following limitations:
wherein before calculating a price difference of each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units, the method further comprises: generating a calculation request message for each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units; [See [0028-0029]; (Fig. 2, element 210) Taylor teaches that, upon receiving the request for change at step 210, the provider may calculate the fare or fares of alternatives to the existing reservation (i.e., generating a calculation request message for each of the candidate flight combinations). Upon making the request to change the itinerary at step 210, the customer may specify the criteria upon which the provider based the alternatives, and that this criteria may be the customer's fare class, fare rules, or travel dates (i.e., generating a calculation request message for each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units).]
storing each of the date units, each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units, and the calculation request message ... [See [0028-0029]; (Fig. 2, element 210) Taylor teaches that, upon receiving the request for change at step 210, the provider may calculate the fare or fares of alternatives to the existing reservation. Upon making the request to change the itinerary at step 210, the customer may specify the criteria upon which the provider based the alternatives, and that this criteria may be the customer's fare class, fare rules, or travel dates. Taylor [0032] further teaches that a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory, a random access memory (i.e., storing each of the date units, each of the candidate flight combinations corresponding to each of the date units, and the calculation request message ...).]
Although Taylor in view of Meyer teaches storing requests in random access memory before sending the requests and associated instructions to a processor for processing, Taylor in view of Meyer does not explicitly teach that the requests are stored using a two-level storage structure. Therefore, Taylor in view of Meyer does not, however Chen does, disclose the following limitations:
storing ... according to a two-level storage structure. [See [pg. 7] Chen teaches storing reservation data in an array according to a two-level hash map and that the reservation data is stored according to key-values.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the storage techniques of Taylor in view of Meyer with the storage techniques of Chen. 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 two-level storage structure of Chen for the storage structure of Taylor in view of Meyer. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in prior art rejections:
Eijdenberg (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0156317) – Per flight cabin selection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights