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 responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 07/10/2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 9-10 have been amended.
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.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claim 10, the claim is not drawn to one of the four statutory categories. The claim is drawn to “A computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon” which performs a method when executed by the processor. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer storage medium” includes transitory signals. Claims which are directed to a signal per se are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Importantly, the claim does not positively require the processor by which the instructions are executable. Thus, the claim is directed to subject matter which encompasses a transitory signal within its broadest reasonable interpretation, and thus is not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 10, the claim is not drawn to one of the four statutory categories. The claim is drawn to “A computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon” which performs a method when executed by the processor. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer storage medium” includes mere software per se. Claims which are directed to software per se are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Importantly, the claim does not positively require the processor by which the program is executable. Thus, the claim is directed to subject matter which encompasses a transitory signal within its broadest reasonable interpretation, and thus is not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner assumes, arguendo, that claim 10 is directed to one of the four statutory categories in the form of an article of manufacture for the abstract idea analysis below.
The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 10, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving a. . . message for special services regarding passenger travel documents, wherein the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents comprises a passenger list record number and an action code; (claims 1, 5, 9, and 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a message containing this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers)
obtaining a customer travel record with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number; (claims 1, 5, 9, and 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain a customer travel record with the same record number based on the passenger list record number; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers)
determining a target processing method corresponding to a type of the action code; (claims 1, 5, 9, and 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a target processing method corresponding to a type of an action code; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers)
and completing processing of the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents based on the customer travel record and the target processing method. (claims 1, 5, 9, and 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could complete processing of a message based on this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for updating customer travel records which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this set of steps in maintaining travel records for their customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a telex message (claims 1, 5, 9, and 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using telex messages since the messages are recited at a high level of generality, since they serve in their ordinary capacity to perform the existing function of transmitting information, and since the outcome or result of using telex messages is recited without describing how the outcome or result is brought about)
A telex message processing apparatus, comprising: (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a receiving unit, configured to (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an obtaining unit, configured to (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a determination unit, configured to (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a processing unit (claim 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; (claim 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a storage apparatus having one or more programs stored thereon, (claim 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors implement the telex message processing method according to claim 1. (claim 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the telex message processing method according to claim 1 is implemented. (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 6:
if it is determined that there is the activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, confirming that there is already the same content;
or if it is determined that there is no activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, adding special service information regarding passenger travel documents in the customer travel record, wherein the special service information regarding passenger travel documents contains two parts of general content and specific content, the general content comprises an SSR type, an airline, an action code, the number of associated passengers, whether it is an automatic type, an associated flight departure city, an associated flight destination city, an associated flight number, an associated flight suffix, an associated flight class, an associated flight date, a free text, a creation sequence number, whether it is an inactive element, whether it is a public item, and a sequence number in the customer travel record, and the specific content comprises a passenger travel document type, a passenger travel document issuing country, a passenger travel document number, a passenger's date of birth recorded on a passenger travel document, passenger's gender recorded on the passenger travel document, an expiration date of the passenger travel document, a passenger's surname recorded on the passenger travel document, and a passenger's first name recorded on the passenger travel document.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make these determinations and perform these data processing steps in response to the outcomes of each determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers.
Claims 3 and 7:
wherein if the type of the action code is NO, the completing processing of the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents based on the customer travel record and the target processing method comprises: determining whether there is an activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents;
if it is determined that there is the activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, determining whether action code content of the activity special service item is target content, wherein the target content is HK;
if it is determined that the action code content of the activity special service item is the target content, modifying the action code content of the activity special service item to NO, and modifying creation sequence number content of the activity special service item to a current update number;
or if it is determined that there is no activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, confirming that there is no such content.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make these determinations and perform these data processing steps in response to the outcomes of each determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers.
Claims 4 and 8:
wherein if the type of the action code is HX or XX, the completing processing of the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents based on the customer travel record and the target processing method comprises: determining whether there is an activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents;
if it is determined that there is the activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, determining whether action code content of the activity special service item is target content, wherein the target content is HK;
if it is determined that the action code content of the activity special service item is the target content, modifying the action code content of the activity special service item to XX, modifying creation sequence number content of the activity special service item to a current update number, and modifying content of whether it is an inactive element of the activity special service item to TRUE;
or if it is determined that there is no activity special service item in the customer travel record that matches the telex message for special services regarding travel documents, confirming that there is no such content.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make these determinations and perform these data processing steps in response to the outcomes of each determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial travel companies would perform this step in maintaining travel records for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5648900; hereinafter "Bowen") in view of Shaffi, Baiju (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180204146; hereinafter "Shaffi").
As per claim 1, with respect to the following limitation:
A telex message processing method, comprising:
Bowen teaches a system and method for processing reservation services. (Bowen: abstract) Bowen, however, does not appear to teach the use of Telex messages in such.
Shaffi, however, teaches that telex messages may be used for updating PNRs when flights need to be rebooked or updated. (Shaffi: paragraphs [0011, 17, 32-36]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Bowen, or by Shaffi. Using a Telex message to indicate that a PNR needs to be updated does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Bowen. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Shaffi with the teachings of Bowen, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Bowen in view of Shaffi further teaches:
receiving a telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents, wherein the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents comprises a passenger list record number and an action code;
Bowen teaches that the system may receive a message indicating that a group control record (GCR), wherein the system may use the GCR identifier (a passenger list record number) to identify sub PNRs (customer travel records with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number) which need an action code updated (a special service), wherein the system may automatically update the action code in response thereto. (Bowen: col. 13 lines 28-67; col.17 lines 26-53) Shaffi, as outlined above, teaches that telex messages may be used for updating PNRs when flights need to be rebooked or updated. (Shaffi: paragraphs [0011, 17, 32-36]) The motivation to combine Shaffi persists.
obtaining a customer travel record with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number;
Bowen teaches that the system may receive a message indicating that a group control record (GCR), wherein the system may use the GCR identifier (a passenger list record number) to identify sub PNRs (customer travel records with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number) which need an action code updated (a special service), wherein the system may automatically update the action code in response thereto. (Bowen: col. 13 lines 28-67; col.17 lines 26-53) Shaffi, as outlined above, teaches that telex messages may be used for updating PNRs when flights need to be rebooked or updated. (Shaffi: paragraphs [0011, 17, 32-36]) The motivation to combine Shaffi persists.
determining a target processing method corresponding to a type of the action code;
Bowen teaches that the system may receive a message indicating that a group control record (GCR), wherein the system may use the GCR identifier (a passenger list record number) to identify sub PNRs (customer travel records with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number) which need an action code updated (a special service via a determined target processing method), wherein the system may automatically update the action code in response thereto. (Bowen: col. 13 lines 28-67; col.17 lines 26-53) Shaffi, as outlined above, teaches that telex messages may be used for updating PNRs when flights need to be rebooked or updated. (Shaffi: paragraphs [0011, 17, 32-36]) The motivation to combine Shaffi persists.
and completing processing of the telex message for special services regarding passenger travel documents based on the customer travel record and the target processing method.
Bowen teaches that the system may receive a message indicating that a group control record (GCR), wherein the system may use the GCR identifier (a passenger list record number) to identify sub PNRs (customer travel records with the same passenger record number based on the passenger list record number) which need an action code updated (a special service via a determined target processing method), wherein the system may automatically update the action code in response thereto. (Bowen: col. 13 lines 28-67; col.17 lines 26-53) Shaffi, as outlined above, teaches that telex messages may be used for updating PNRs when flights need to be rebooked or updated. (Shaffi: paragraphs [0011, 17, 32-36]) The motivation to combine Shaffi persists.
As per claim 5, Bowen in view of Shaffi teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A telex message processing apparatus, comprising:
Bowen teaches a system and method for processing reservation services. (Bowen: abstract) Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
a receiving unit, configured to
Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
an obtaining unit, configured to
Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
a determination unit, configured to
Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
and a processing unit
Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
As per claim 9, Bowen in view of Shaffi teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors;
Bowen teaches a system and method for processing reservation services. (Bowen: abstract) Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
and a storage apparatus having one or more programs stored thereon, wherein when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors implement the telex message processing method according to claim 1.
Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
As per claim 10, Bowen in view of Shaffi teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the telex message processing method according to claim 1 is implemented.
Bowen teaches a system and method for processing reservation services. (Bowen: abstract) Bowen teaches the implementation of the system and method via one or more computers comprising receiving units, obtaining units, determination units, and processing units in the form of computer programs and software which contain code which, when executed by the processor of the computer, perform the functions of the system. (Boen: col. 5 line 2 to col. 6 line 40)
Novelty/Non-obviousness
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of claims 2-4 and 6-8, the prior art does not appear to teach, in the context of the systems and methods for updating travel documents using telex messages, any determinations as to the specific action code (NO, XX, OR HK) received as well as specific actions performed in response to the receipt of such action codes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
