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 the application and preliminary amendment filed on 07/10/2025.
Claims 9-10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application CN202310032141.0 filed in People’s Republic of China on 01/10/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 600. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0146] recites “a storage apparatus 609” when it appears it should recite “a storage apparatus 608” to match the Figures
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “…comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an application program, the processor calls the application program stored in the memory…” when it appears it should recite “…comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory stores an application program, the at least one processor calls the application program stored in the at least one memory…” to more clearly establish antecedent basis
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that method claims 3 and 4 recite contingent limitations. Particularly, claim 3 recites “if the target rule is not empty, determining a calculation order based on ranks of the itinerary conditions in the target rule; and sequentially calculating the itinerary conditions and the fare parameter that correspond to the target rule in the calculation order, filtering the calculated results based on the filtering parameter corresponding to the target rule, and sorting the filtered results based on the sorting parameter corresponding to the target rule to output a sorted result”. Claim 4 recites “if the target rule is empty, returning a neutral result”.
Per MPEP 2111.04 II. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
Turning first to claim 3, because the limitation of “if the target rule is not empty” does not need to occur (i.e. in the case where the target rule is empty/there is no target rule identified, see discussion of the interpretation of “empty”/”not empty” in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below), the contingent limitations that occur upon the target rule not being empty are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim. That is, “determining a calculation order based on ranks of the itinerary conditions in the target rule; and sequentially calculating the itinerary conditions and the fare parameter that correspond to the target rule in the calculation order, filtering the calculated results based on the filtering parameter corresponding to the target rule, and sorting the filtered results based on the sorting parameter corresponding to the target rule to output a sorted result” are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3.
Turning to claim 4, the claim contains the contingency of claim 3 as well as the contingency introduced in claim 4. Because one of the contingencies must be satisfied (i.e. the target rule must either be empty or not empty), the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 requires either the contingency of claim 4 (a neutral result returned if there is no target rule identified) OR the contingency recited in claim 3. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 4 requires only one of the contingencies in claims 3 and 4 to be taught.
In the interest of compact prosecution, prior art has been applied to all limitations in claims 3 and 4 as if they were required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Examiner notes that the same contingencies present in claims 3 and 4 are also recited in claims 7 and 8. However, MPEP 2111.04 II. further recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed”. Accordingly, because claims 7 and 8 are system claims, both contingencies are required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “generating rules for itinerary and fare calculations”. While paragraphs [0057]-[0059] purportedly recite steps comprising the generation of rules, the paragraphs recite exact claim language. Paragraph [0058] recites the configuration of various attributes that correspond to each rule, but the nature of the rule itself is not recited. Paragraph [0060] discusses the performance of “personalized configurations for itinerary calculation and fare calculation” as setting “relevant rules”. However, the specification does not recite how these “personalized configurations” affect the calculations themselves. Specifically, [0069]-[0070] recite itinerary conditions and fare parameters that indicate what may/may not being calculated (i.e. indicating that single-segment-added fares are/are not supported and indicating what flight types are restricted), but neither [0069]-[0070] nor elsewhere in the specification recites how the rules control the way in which these calculations are being performed. Accordingly, while the specification describes the airline generating/configuring features corresponding to what searches/queries the rules may apply to, the specification does not recite what the rules actually are and how they control the calculation process of itineraries and fares.
Claim 1 additionally recites “determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results”. Regarding the “determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules”, Examiner notes that the claim language recites that a target rule is known/selected before matching begins and is later determined to match with the user request. Instead, specification [0078]-[0100] recites evaluating multiple rules to determine if a rule has associated POS and airline route information that matches the POS and airline route information of the user request. If such a rule is found, the specification refers to the rule as “a target rule”. Accordingly, Applicant’s specification does not have written description support for determining that a known target rule matches a user request. Regarding the performance of itinerary and fare calculations, as discussed above, Applicant’s specification recites that itinerary and fare calculations are performed, but provides no details regarding what the steps are in performing such calculations. Applicant’s specification states that flights and corresponding fares are calculated in [0104]-[0105] when discussing “Rule Calculation” in detail, but provides no steps for what calculations are performed or how the target rule identified from the matching process affects or guides such calculations. Applicant’s specification appears to jump from identifying a rule triggered by a user request having the same POS and route as the “target rule” to discussing filtering and sorting in [0106]-[0124], with some black box calculations being made that result in the itineraries/fares to be sorted.
Therefore, claim 1 lacks sufficient written description. Dependent claims 2-4 also lack sufficient written description by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 and for additional reasoning discussed below.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “performing simulation based on the point-of-sale information, the air route information, the itinerary conditions, the fare parameter, the filtering parameter, and the sorting parameter that correspond to each rule to determine a status of each rule, wherein the status comprises an effective status or an ineffective status” (emphasis added).
First, Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be using the terms “effective” and “ineffective” to mean “active” and “inactive”, respectively. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for more details. For the purposes of the following analysis, Examiner is interpreting “effective”/”ineffective” as “active”/”inactive”.
Paragraph [0061] recites “for the rule not set to the effective status, a simulated search can be carried out through the simulation function of a page to check whether the results meet the expectation. If the results meet the expectation, the rule can be set to the effective status”, and paragraph [0064] recites “the airline can temporarily save the rules without making them effective and then enter the simulation page for simulation to confirm that the rule setting meets the expectation. On the simulation page, the airline fills in identity information of an inquirer and query conditions as needed, conducts simulation, and then checks results returned by the simulation to verify whether the results meet the expectation”. Examiner notes that the simulation of a user request to test whether the rule behaves as expected, as recited in the specification, is not the same as the simulation determining the status of the rules. While [0061] appears to allude to a connection between the results of the simulation “meeting expectation” and setting the rule to “effective” status, the specification is silent regarding what or who decides if a simulation outcome of a rule “meets expectations” and what or who sets the status of the rule (i.e. whether the process is automated, whether a human user representing the airline sets the rule status manually after reviewing the simulation results and determining whether the results “meet expectations”, etc.). Therefore, claim 2 lacks sufficient written description as to how the performing of a simulation of a rule determines the status of the rule.
Claims 3 and 4 lack sufficient written description by virtue of their dependence on claim 2 and for their own reasoning discussed below.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “sequentially matching the point-of-sale information and the air route information between the user request and the extracted rules in the matching order to determine the target rule in the extracted rules that matches the user request”. Similar to the discussion of claim 1 above, claim 3 simultaneously recites determining a known target rule matched with the user request and that the target rule is only discovered after a matching process is performed. The specification as filed does not have support for both matching an already-identified target rule to a user request and attempting to match the user request to a plurality of extracted rules to discover the target rule. As discussed above regarding claim 1, the specification recites designating a rule with POS and air route information matching the user request as a “target rule”, not taking an already-identified target rule and matching it to a user request.
Claim 3 further recites “determining a calculation order based on ranks of the itinerary conditions in the target rule; and sequentially calculating the itinerary conditions and the fare parameter that correspond to the target rule in the calculation order”. Paragraphs [0104]-[0105] recite “For the user request that successfully matches the target rule, calculations are carried out in sequence starting from rankl based on the fare parameter and ranks of the itinerary conditions in the target rule. 1) Flights and corresponding fares are generated in sequence based on the itinerary conditions and the fare parameter in the rule”. Paragraph [0071] recites “It is also to be noted that a plurality of itinerary conditions can be set. If there are a plurality of itinerary conditions, a corresponding rank can be set for each itinerary condition. The lower the RANK, the higher the level, which means it is the result that the airline most wants to sell. Accordingly, it should appear more prominently in the final result”. While paragraph [0104]-[0105] mentions that a rank of an itinerary condition and a fare parameter determine a sequence in which calculations are to be conducted, how the fare parameter and itinerary condition rank combine to determine a calculation order is not recited in the specification. The specification merely states that these two factors somehow produce a calculation order. Furthermore, the ranking process of the itinerary conditions is also not supported in the specification. [0071] recites that corresponding ranks can be set for itinerary conditions, but what or who is setting the ranks and how the ranks are being assigned is absent from the specification. Furthermore, “the lower the rank, the higher the level” introduces a “level” concept that is not explained or mentioned again, making it unclear how Applicant is using the rankings to determine an order of calculations. Additionally, the rankings in [0071] appear to reference the rankings’ impact on the final display (with itinerary conditions appearing “more prominently in the final result” based on the ranks) rather than the order in which calculations are to be performed. Finally, the calculations themselves lack sufficient written description for similar reasoning as that discussed above in more detail regarding claim 1. In brief, what the calculations are and how the target rule guides/affects the calculations is not disclosed by the specification. Accordingly, while calculations are said to be performed sequentially, there is a lack of support for what calculations are being done in sequence.
Accordingly, claim 3 lacks sufficient written description support. Claim 4 lacks written description support by virtue of its dependence on claim 3 and for its own reasoning as discussed below.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “if the target rule is empty, returning a neutral result”. Leaving aside the full explanation of the “empty”/”not empty” terminology discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below in greater detail, claim 4 recites that a “neutral result” is returned if a target rule is not found/does not exist. Paragraphs [0003] and [0047] of Applicant’s specification recite that a “neutral result” is a set of itineraries and fares calculated according to “established rules” without providing further explanation as to what such “established rules” are or how they guide/affect fare/itinerary calculations. Instead, “neutral result” is being used in the specification as a stand in for any method of calculating itineraries/fares that does not follow a rule with a POS and route requirement, with the “neutral result” being obtained via a black box of “established rules” that are apparently different rules from those rules recited in the claims but otherwise undefined. Accordingly, claim 4 also lacks sufficient written description support.
Regarding claim 5, the claim lacks written description support for similar reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Claims 6-8 lack sufficient written description support by virtue of their dependence on claim 5 and for their own reasons.
Regarding claim 6, the claim lacks written description support for similar reasons discussed above regarding claim 2. Claims 7-8 lack sufficient written description support by virtue of their dependence on claim 6 and for their own reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the claim lacks written description support for similar reasons discussed above regarding claim 3. Claim 8 lacks sufficient written description support by virtue of its dependence on claim 7 and for its own reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the claim lacks written description support for similar reasons discussed above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims both recite “the method according to claim 1”. Therefore, both claims 9 and 10 lack sufficient written description and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 1.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting “rules” to cover any criteria for how flight segments are to be selected and how the costs of those segments are to be determined based on POS and route information. The calculations of the claims are being interpreted to cover any method of arriving at a cost for an airline itinerary. Regarding the simulation to determine the status of the rule, Examiner is interpreting a provider testing a search or fare calculation rule to validate the rule’s effects as reading on the limitation. Regarding “neutral results”, Examiner is interpreting a “neutral result” to be any result that doesn’t originate based on a combination of a user’s POS and route information triggering an alternate pricing strategy. Further detail regarding claim interpretation will be provided throughout the prior art rejections below.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “effective status” and “ineffective status” in claim 2 are used by the claim to mean “used to handle actual user requests” and “not used to handle actual user request,” while the accepted meaning is “performing assigned functions well” and “not performing assigned functions well.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Particularly, “effective” and “ineffective” are not used in the specification as to refer to how well a rule achieves its intended purpose, as would be understood using the commonly accepted meaning of the terms to one of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, the labels “effective”/”ineffective” are used to indicate whether the rule will be considered when evaluating actual user requests or should only be considered when simulating user requests. This distinction would be recognized as a rule being “active”/”inactive”, but not as “effective”/”ineffective”. While Applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the specification does not explicitly redefine “effective” or “ineffective” to reflect the manner in which the terms are used in the specification. Accordingly, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 6 is indefinite for similar reasoning to that discussed above regarding claim 2. Claims 3 and 7 also use “effective” in a manner inconsistent with its accepted meaning for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 2. Claims 3-4 an 7-8 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claims 2 and 6, respectively. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting “effective status” as “active status” and “ineffective status” as “inactive status”.
Additionally, Claim 3 recites “not empty” to mean “exists”, and claim 4 recites “empty” to mean “does not exist”. The closest accepted meaning of “empty”/”not empty” would be whether a mathematical set had no elements (“an empty set”) or if the mathematical set had at least one element (“not empty”). Applicant’s specifications did not explicitly redefine these terms. Specifically, Applicant does not define a set of target rules that may be the empty set. Applicant’s specification instead refers to whether a target rule can be found in the “effective” rules or not.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting “empty”/”not empty” as “exists”/”does not exist”. Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite for similar reasoning discussed regarding claims 3 and 4.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim does not fall into one of the four statutory categories. Particularly, the claim covers signals per se. Claim 10 recites “A storage medium, storing computer program codes which, when executed, implement the itinerary search method according to claim 1”. Per Applicant’s specification [0150] “It is to be noted that the above storage medium in the present application may be a computer-readable signal medium…In the present application, the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or propagated as a part of a carrier, where the data signal carries computer-readable program codes” (emphasis added). The storage medium being a data signal propagated as part of a carrier is discussed in MPEP 2106.03 I. as being “signals per se” and not directed to any of the statutory categories. While [0150] of the specification recites other embodiments of the storage medium that would fall into one of the statutory categories, MPEP 2106.03 II. states that “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected”. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not being directed to at least one of the statutory categories.
Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to preclude any transitory embodiments of the storage medium. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 10 will be further discussed in the Alice rejections below assuming arguendo that claim 10 has been amended such that it falls into at least one of the statutory categories
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining how to present airline itinerary search results to users.
As an initial matter, claims 1-4 fall into at least the method category of statutory subject matter. Claims 5-8 and 9 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 10 is being treated in this analysis as if it were to fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into, or at least are being interpreted for the sake of this analysis as falling into, at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “An itinerary search method, comprising: generating rules for itinerary and fare calculations”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitation of “and when a user request is received, determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of determining how to present airline itinerary search results to users which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An itinerary search method, comprising: generating rules for itinerary and fare calculations; and when a user request is received, determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not recite any additional elements, as the entirety of the limitations of claim 1 fall into the judicial exceptions of the claims. Per MPEP 2106.04 II.A.2., “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application… For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim does not integrate its judicial exceptions into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions at Step 2B. As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 5, the limitation of “An itinerary search apparatus, comprising: a personalized configuration front-end configured to generate rules for itinerary and fare calculations”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an itinerary search apparatus” and “a personalized configuration front-end,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitation of “and a search engine configured to determine, when a user request is received, a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, perform the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and output corresponding results”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the concept of determining how to present airline itinerary search results to users which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An itinerary search, comprising: generate rules for itinerary and fare calculations; and determine, when a user request is received, a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, perform the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and output corresponding results all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an itinerary search apparatus, a personalized configuration front-end, and a search engine. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an itinerary search apparatus, a personalized configuration front-end, and a search engine amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6-8 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of an electronic device comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, the memory storing an application program that is called by the processor to implement the method of claim 1. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of an electronic device comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, the memory storing an application program that is called by the processor to implement the method of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a storage medium storing computer program codes which, when executed, implement the itinerary search method. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a storage medium storing computer program codes which, when executed, implement the itinerary search method is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claverie et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0145740, hereafter known as Claverie).
Regarding claim 1, Claverie teaches:
An itinerary search method, comprising (see Figs. 1 and 2 for overall method. Also see [0041] "FIG. 1 shows the steps of the method to display the lowest fares found by a travel search and booking engine of the prior art in response to a travel request, e.g., issued by a travel agent or by the end-user of an online travel application" and [0052] "FIG. 2 shows the extra steps introduced by the invention in the display of the travel recommendations returned by the low-fare search engine")
generating rules for itinerary and fare calculations (see [0026], [0053], and [0061] for the business rules being set by an airline. See [0046] for the obtaining of POS, air route information, and display order preference (i.e. sorting preference) corresponding to carrier preferred display rules, see [0044] for these CPD rules being used to filter potential travel segments (the rules serving as a filtering parameter). Also see [0045] for general filtering parameters and itinerary conditions, like "retain all direct flights", that correspond to every query including corresponding to queries that are also processed according to CPD rules. For fare parameters, see [0053] "For each itinerary of the travel recommendations airline revenue per segment is thus calculated by the proration module. The calculation is done according to IATA general rules and/or provisos resulting of agreements between airlines" and [0060] for provisos of airlines to govern the proration calculation of individual segment fares)
and when a user request is received, determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results (see [0042] for receiving a user request. See [0044]-[0046] for Carrier Preferred Display rules determining/filtering segments to be applied to revenue calculation based on provisos from airlines governing proration calculations in [0053]. See [0050] "similar travel recommendations are grouped and sorting rules applied to build the display" and [0053] "the building and display of recommendations performed at next step (270) can take into account the actual revenue generated for the validating airline by a particular travel recommendation. The system can thus first display, among all found overall lowest fare recommendations of itineraries that meet the traveler request, the ones which however generate the highest revenue for the validating airline. To control the ordering of the display the travel recommendations are thus weighed according to various business rules set by the validating airline so that, e.g.: the highest net revenue is indeed considered (i.e.: the sum of revenue for the segments operated by the validating airline); the highest revenue per mile flown; or the highest revenue for the alliance of airlines of which the validating airline is a participating member" for outputting corresponding recommendations in order of highest net revenue for the airline)
Regarding claim 9, Claverie teaches:
An electronic device, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an application program, the processor calls the application program stored in the memory, and the application program is configured to implement the itinerary search method according to claim 1 (see [0032]-[0035] for a computing means including a computer program product stored on a medium to cause the computer to perform the method. See rejection of claim 1 above for the method of claim 1)
Regarding claim 10, Claverie teaches:
A storage medium, storing computer program codes which, when executed, implement the itinerary search method according to claim 1 (see [0035] "The invention also includes a computer program product stored on a computer readable storage medium, comprising computer readable code means for causing at least one computer to operate the above method of sorting and displaying travel recommendations". See rejection of claim 1 above for the method according to claim 1)
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claverie in view of Pradignac et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0024217, hereafter known as Pradignac).
Regarding claim 2, Claverie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Claverie further teaches:
wherein the generating rules for itinerary and fare calculations comprises: obtaining, in response to a rule configuration instruction, point-of-sale information, air route information, itinerary conditions, a fare parameter, a filtering parameter, and a sorting parameter that correspond to each rule to be configured (see [0026], [0053], and [0061] for the business rules being set by an airline. See [0046] for the obtaining of POS, air route information, and display order preference (i.e. sorting preference) corresponding to carrier preferred display rules, see [0044] for these CPD rules being used to filter potential travel segments (the rules serving as a filtering parameter). Also see [0045] for general filtering parameters and itinerary conditions, like "retain all direct flights", that correspond to every query including queries that are also processed according to CPD rules. For fare parameters, see [0053] "For each itinerary of the travel recommendations airline revenue per segment is thus calculated by the proration module. The calculation is done according to IATA general rules and/or provisos resulting of agreements between airlines" and [0060] for provisos of airlines to govern the proration calculation of individual segment fares)
While Claverie teaches receiving POS information, air route information, itinerary conditions, fare parameters, filtering parameters, and sorting parameters in response to airlines generating corresponding rules, Claverie does not explicitly teach performing a simulation based on the received parameters of the configured rule to determine an “effective” or “ineffective” status for the rule. Pradignac teaches:
and performing simulation based on the point-of-sale information, the air route information, the itinerary conditions, the fare parameter, the filtering parameter, and the sorting parameter that correspond to each rule to determine a status of each rule, wherein the status comprises an effective status or an ineffective status (see [0054] "An Active Valuation Simulator allows the user at rule creation/update time to visualize the impacts of the pending modifier rules as compared to the situation without any modifier rules in place, and with already submitted rules in place" and [0060]-[0061] "the user can subscribe to an Active Valuation Decision Support tools package that contains tools for simulating and monitoring the impact of the update before and after submitting the rule modification. An Active Valuation cycle that aims to ensure that the rule updates done by the user at are well informed decisions, thanks to the possibility to simulate the impact before submitting the rule" for a user performing a simulation of a created rule before the rule is submitted to determine the impact of the rule. [0061] further states that the rule can be submitted and monitored after the simulation. Also see Figs. 6 and 7 and [0110]-[0113] for an example simulation. Examiner is interpreting this simulation to review impacts of a potential rule before submitting the rule for active use as reading on the simulation “to determine a status” in claim 2, with a subsequent decision by the user to submit the rule as making the rule’s status “effective”. In combination with Claverie, the rules being simulated are the rules from Claverie described above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ability to simulate the impacts of pending itinerary and fare calculation rules of Pradignac into the system of Claverie. As Pradignac states in [0047], “Safeguards are included to avoid any potential `spiral down` consequence of the automated process. A RAAV simulator allows an airline user to observe the impact of the business rules created in the system, and can be set to isolate the impact of the Competition adjustment rule(s) in terms of Yield adjustment and then availability adjustment. In this way the airline user can initially apply the competition adjustment in the simulations before applying it to actual incoming availability requests”. Therefore, by incorporating the ability to simulate the effects of new rules on fare and itinerary outputs into the system of Claverie, the resulting system would allow airlines to guard against rules triggering a price spiral down as the system would repeatedly try to undercut competition to the point of being unprofitable to the airline.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Claverie and Pradignac teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Claverie further teaches:
wherein the determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results comprises: extracting rules in the effective status from the rules, and determining a matching order based on ranks of the extracted rules (see [0026], [0053], and [0061] for the business rules being set (i.e. put in "effective status") by an airline. See [0044]-[0046] for extracting objective general rules and carrier preferred display rules that are in "effective status". See [0044] "To achieve this objective general selection rules and carrier preferred display (CPD) business rules are applied as early as possible to filter the proposed segments" and [050] "similar travel recommendations are grouped and sorting rules applied to build the display" for CPD rules applied earlier in sequence than sorting rules because of their importance, which Examiner is interpreting as the CPD rules matched at step 130 before sorting rules matched at 170 outranking the sorting rules)
sequentially matching the point-of-sale information and the air route information between the user request and the extracted rules in the matching order to determine the target rule in the extracted rules that matches the user request (see [0146] "The carrier preferred display (CPD) business rules consider things such as the point of sale, i.e., the channel through which a carrier seat offering is distributed. For example, this can be through an airline agent on a carrier domestic market, for a corporate customer of a specific country, online from carrier web site, etc. In which case the display is tailored to the particular distribution channel. Also, on markets defined by their origin/destination city pairs specific rules may apply. Such a market can be defined between a large city like Paris (PAR) and all the cities having an airport in a country, e.g.: Thailand (TH)" for matching the POS and air route information of a user search request in sequence before sorting rules to determine CPD rules that apply to a request)
if the target rule is not empty, determining a calculation order based on ranks of the itinerary conditions in the target rule (see [0063] "the proration module needs also to take into consideration any special rules or provisos that may be part of the agreements between airlines practicing interlining. Provisos are exceptions to the application of the straight rate proration rule, e.g., on certain geographical sectors on which the airlines operate (on specific city pairs, groups of city pairs, in a country, etc.). They can apply to all fares, or can be specified for particular fare types" for determining a calculation order based on special provisos between airlines taking precedence over standard proration rules)
and sequentially calculating the itinerary conditions and the fare parameter that correspond to the target rule in the calculation order (see [0060] "the proration module (304) performs the calculation of all the individual segments of the travel recommendations. To do so, the proration module needs to access the repository (340) of all proration agreements that have been contracted with other airlines, on a one to one basis, and possibly with groups of airlines. This includes the general rules published by IATA and, possibly, any special rules known as provisos" and [0049] "The fare server is part of any computerized resources and specific software applications (100) put in place by airlines and/or GDSs as previously discussed. The search of the cheapest travel recommendations can optionally be performed over a large range of dates, e.g., displayed in a calendar panel mode so that traveler is offered more travel opportunities, possibly cheaper, in a range of travel dates encompassing the requested travel dates. Alternatively, recommendations may include travel opportunities with higher levels of service than requested (hence, more expensive) if provider is practicing upselling of its travel offering" for the sequential calculation of flight itineraries following special proviso proration agreements and standard proration procedure for itineraries.)
filtering the calculated results based on the filtering parameter corresponding to the target rule, and sorting the filtered results based on the sorting parameter corresponding to the target rule to output a sorted result (see [0049] "Typically, anything from 1 to a few tenths of travel recommendations are retrieved to be displayed to the issuer of the travel request" for filtering parameter applicable to the target rules and [0053] "The system can thus first display, among all found overall lowest fare recommendations of itineraries that meet the traveler request, the ones which however generate the highest revenue for the validating airline. To control the ordering of the display the travel recommendations are thus weighed according to various business rules set by the validating airline so that, e.g.: the highest net revenue is indeed considered (i.e.: the sum of revenue for the segments operated by the validating airline); the highest revenue per mile flown; or the highest revenue for the alliance of airlines of which the validating airline is a participating member. The above is by no means a limitative list of business rules that can be considered by the validating airline. Irrespective of the type of business rules applied a weight derived from the expected revenue is however always attributed to each travel recommendation to display them in a most appropriate order for the validating airline" for sorting rules based on the target rules of the validating airline to generate an output of recommended travel options. See Fig. 2 for recommendations)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Claverie and Pradignac teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. Claverie further teaches:
wherein the determining a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, performing the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and outputting corresponding results further comprises: if the target rule is empty, returning a neutral result (see [0045] "The general selection rules take into consideration parameters such as the number of segments required to complete the requested itinerary and the number of legs composing the multi-leg segments. The general rules tend to retain the solutions requiring fewer segments and legs. Hence, all direct/non-stop proposed segments are always retained. Other parameters like the elapsed flight time (EFT), i.e.: the trip duration, and the airport continuity in a connecting city are also considered. This selection is however completely neutral on the view point of the selected airlines" and [0026] "The sorting of the travel recommendations is optionally done on the basis of business rules set by the airline issuing the travel tickets" for the general rules providing a "neutral result" from the point of view of the airlines, with other airline-specific rules based on POS and air route information being optional (see [0046] for origin/destination pair rules only maybe be applicable depending on the market. Therefore, in a case in which market-based rules do not apply (i.e. a POS and route triggered target rule is "empty"), only neutral rules are applied and a neutral result is provided to a user query. As another example of returning a neutral result, see [0050] "Optionally, an error message is displayed if no recommendation could be found that satisfies the travel request")
Regarding claim 5, Claverie teaches:
An itinerary search apparatus, comprising: (see [0032]-[0035] for a computing means including a computer program product stored on a medium to cause the computer to perform the method)
(see [0026], [0053], and [0061] for the business rules being set by an airline. See [0046] for the obtaining of POS, air route information, and display order preference (i.e. sorting preference) corresponding to carrier preferred display rules, see [0044] for these CPD rules being used to filter potential travel segments (the rules serving as a filtering parameter). Also see [0045] for general filtering parameters and itinerary conditions, like "retain all direct flights", that correspond to every query including corresponding to queries that are also processed according to CPD rules. For fare parameters, see [0053] "For each itinerary of the travel recommendations airline revenue per segment is thus calculated by the proration module. The calculation is done according to IATA general rules and/or provisos resulting of agreements between airlines" and [0060] for provisos of airlines to govern the proration calculation of individual segment fares)
and a search engine configured to determine, when a user request is received, a target rule matched with the user request from the rules, perform the itinerary and fare calculations based on the target rule, and output corresponding results (see [0042] "In any standard low-fare search and booking engine there is a validation step (110) which is aimed at checking the user access rights, minimum content and consistency of the search request: origin, destination, travel dates, passenger information, etc. The users of such low-fare search engines are typically the agents of regular travel agencies, those of airlines city or airport offices and agents of travel call centers" and [0052] "FIG. 2 shows the extra steps introduced by the invention in the display of the travel recommendations returned by the low-fare search engine" for a search engine. [0042] for receiving a user request. See [0044]-[0046] for Carrier Preferred Display rules determining segments to be applied to revenue calculation based on provisos from airlines governing proration calculations in [0053]. See [0050] "similar travel recommendations are grouped and sorting rules applied to build the display" and [0053] "the building and display of recommendations performed at next step (270) can take into account the actual revenue generated for the validating airline by a particular travel recommendation. The system can thus first display, among all found overall lowest fare recommendations of itineraries that meet the traveler request, the ones which however generate the highest revenue for the validating airline. To control the ordering of the display the travel recommendations are thus weighed according to various business rules set by the validating airline so that, e.g.: the highest net revenue is indeed considered (i.e.: the sum of revenue for the segments operated by the validating airline); the highest revenue per mile flown; or the highest revenue for the alliance of airlines of which the validating airline is a participating member" for outputting corresponding recommendations in order of highest net revenue for the airline)
While Claverie teaches that airline set rules as discussed above, Claverie does not explicitly teach a personalized configuration front-end configured to allow the airlines to set up rules. Pradignac teaches:
a personalized configuration front-end configured to generate rules for itinerary and fare calculations (see [0065] "The Active Valuation Yield Modifier Rules are used to adjust Yields according to specific rules criteria established by the airline. They can be accessed via an Inventory Graphical User Interface and can be modified at any time, in real-time, in order to create adjustments based on a Point of Sale rule, a Trip Characteristics rule, an Interline Yield Factor rule or a Customer Characteristics rule" and Figs. 4 and 5 for a front-end that allows the generation of rules for itinerary and fare calculations)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of providing a graphical user interface for an airline to create/submit itinerary and fare calculation rules of Pradignac to the system of Claverie would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Pradignac to the teaching of Claverie would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a graphical user interface for an airline to create/submit itinerary and fare calculation rules. Further, applying a graphical user interface for an airline to create/submit itinerary and fare calculation rules to Claverie would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the airline to directly enter and set up itinerary and fare calculation rules into the combined system. Claverie’s discussion of airlines setting rules in the system implies a front-end for the airlines to configure business and carrier preferred display rules. By incorporating the user interfaces from Pradignac, the resulting combination would allow the airline to directly input and set up rules into the system and allow the airline to have direct control over the operations of the search engine.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Claverie and Pradignac teaches all of the limitations in claim 5 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 6, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Claverie and Pradignac teaches all of the limitations in claim 6 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 7, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Claverie and Pradignac teaches all of the limitations in claim 7 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 8, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arora et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,515,830) teaches a retailer setting a priority order among a group of rules governing how items for purchase are displayed in response to a user search query
Sink et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0330694) teaches a revenue integrity manager with a GUI allowing a user to set an order in which rules are applied to booking data
Haavet et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0008379) teaches a travel management system using rule sets to determine which travel results to highlight or present
Finlaw et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,010,628) teaches determining and providing flight itineraries for user request based on a geographic location determined from the user’s IP address/Internet Service Provider
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights