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
Due to communications filed 5/9/25, the following is a first action non-final office action. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 10 recite determining constrained fare classes, calculating unconstrained demand, generating an unconstrained demand forecast, and opening an additional fare class based on the forecast. These limitations describe managing airline seat inventory and availability based on predicted customer demand, and commercial interactions involving airline inventory management and fare availability decisions, which is a commercial or business practice and therefore falls within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1 and 10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, including one or more processors, merely perform the recited business analysis and decision-making using generic computer technology. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, reservation-system technology, forecasting technology, or any other technical field. Opening an additional fare class based on the forecast merely applies the business decision resulting from the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, claims 1 and 10 does not include significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited processor performs generic functions of determining, calculating, generating, and opening, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 are also directed to same grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the method in claims 2-19; processors in claims 2, 3 , 4, 7, 9; bookings table in claims 5, 6, 7; system in claims 11-20; processors of claims 13, 14, 17, 19, 20; bookings table of claims 14, 16, 19, 20 are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No.16/60000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose determining one or more fare classes, calculating an unconstrained demand, generating an unconstrained demand forecast for a flight based on the unconstrained bookings table, and opening an additional fare class.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 7136821 B1), and further in view of Walker (US 20050177402 A1) [Walker ‘291].
As per claim 1, Kohavi discloses:
determining, by one or more processors, that one or more fare classes in a plurality of fare classes
are constrained classes, wherein the constrained fare classes include classes for which demand is
constrained due to seat bookings in the one or more fare classes being restricted by availability in the one or more fare classes, ((Description Paragraph - DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price, and initially allocates and prices inventory sufficient to satisfy the expected demand.);
calculating, by the one or more processors, an unconstrained demand for each constrained fare
class in the plurality of fare classes, ((Description Paragraph - DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price, and initially allocates and prices inventory sufficient to satisfy the expected demand.);
generating, by the one or more processors, an unconstrained demand forecast for a flight, (Description Paragraph - DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price); and
Kohavi does not disclose
opening, by the one or more processors, an additional fare class on the flight for seat bookings,
based on the unconstrained demand forecast,
However, (Walker (US 20050177402) discloses in ([O090] In step 1525, the RMS 200 determines whether the expected bookings on one or more of the actual flights exceeds the actual bookings for those flights. The RMS 200, in step 1530 of FIG. 15b, selects one of the actual flights as the flight on which to place the unspecified-time ticket holder. In step 1535, the RMS 200 updates the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and seat allocation database245, accordingly. In particular, the RMS 200 accesses the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and modifies the record for the actual flight by incrementing the "Actual Quantity Booked" by "1". The RMS 200 also accesses the seat allocation database 245 and modifies the record for: (1) the actual flight by incrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1" and decrementing the "Total Seats Remaining" by "1"; and (2) the special fare listing by decrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker ‘402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Kohavi discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, the seat bookings in the additional fare class, ((Description Paragraph - DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price).
As per claim 3, Kohavi does not disclose:
further comprising converting, by the one or more processors, the unconstrained demand for each fare class into integer values representing the seat bookings in the respective fare classes.
However, (Walker (US 20050177402) discloses in ([O090] In step 1525, the RMS 200 determines whether the expected bookings on one or more of the actual flights exceeds the actual bookings for those flights. The RMS 200, in step 1530 of FIG. 15b, selects one of the actual flights as the flight on which to place the unspecified-time ticket holder. In step 1535, the RMS 200 updates the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and seat allocation database .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; }
245, accordingly. In particular, the RMS 200 accesses the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and modifies the record for the actual flight by incrementing the "Actual Quantity Booked" by "1". The RMS 200 also accesses the seat allocation database 245 and modifies the record for: (1) the actual flight by incrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1" and decrementing the "Total Seats Remaining" by "1"; and (2) the special fare listing by decrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Kohavi discloses:
wherein the generating the unconstrained demand forecast for the flight is based on an unconstrained bookings table, (Description Paragraph - DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; } demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price, and initially allocates and prices inventory sufficient to satisfy the expected demand.).
As per claim 7, Kohavi discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, the seat bookings in the additional fare class, (Kohavi (US 7136821) Description Paragraph - DETX (18): The ARMS will monitor the actual demand with each fare class relative to the forecasted demand to dynamically reevaluate the inventory allocated to both the actual flights and the airline special fare listing. In accordance with the actual demand, the ARMS 104 will allocate additional inventory, lower the fare/class, reduce or eliminate the inventory or increase the fare/class).).
As per claim 8, Kohavi does not disclose:
wherein the determining the one or more fare classes that are constrained classes comprises identifying the one or more fare classes that were opened for the seat bookings during a particular time interval.
However, Walker '402 discloses [0069] In step 1155, the airline's RMS 200 forecasts an expected quantity of booked seats for each actual flight (i.e., the expected demand for the actual flight) and calculates a fare/class for the actual flight. In this regard, the RMS 200 accesses the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and analyzes route-based information for each actual flight, including: (1) the total number of actual flights for the specified route on the specified day; (2) historical demand and pricing data from past flights for the specified route during the relevant time period; and (3) current pricing information (e.g., external events, which may affect pricing, such as the Olympics or a fare war). The RMS 200 then enters the expected quantity of booked seats for each actual flight together with the fare/class for the actual flight into the forecasted demand analysis database 230.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
A per claim 9, Kohavi does not discloses:
further comprising weighting, by the one or more processors, the
unconstrained demand for the fare class by a weighting parameter that is determined based at least
partially on a departure date of the flight.
However, Walker '402 discloses in ([0059] The forecasted demand analysis database 230 includes a plurality of records, each associated with a different selling price for a given fare class on a given flight. For each flight number in field 605, the forecasted demand analysis database 230 includes the departure date in .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; } field 610, the origin and destination locations, in fields 615 and 620 respectively, and the corresponding offered prices and fare classes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, this claim recites limitations similar to those of independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 12, Kohavi does not disclose: wherein the seat bookings are grouped into the plurality of fare classes.
However, Walker ‘291 [0077] It is to be understood that an airline may allocate inventory to a special fare listing which requires traveler concessions in addition to flight-time flexibility. Fare discounts would then be commensurate with the degree of flexibility afforded the airline in placing the traveler aboard an actual flight. For example, the airline may offer unspecified-time tickets for particular fare classes only, such as first class (K Class), coach (Y Class), one-stop, etc. The airline may also choose to limit unspecified-time tickets to "groups" of travelers (e.g., two or more, or any other number specified by the airline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker ‘291 in the system of Kohavi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 15, Kohavi discloses:
wherein the calculating the unobscured demand for the one or more fare classes is completed by iteratively executing an expectation maximization (EM) algorithm, ((47) FIGS. 9a and 9b, collectively, illustrate an algorithm for building packages. As shown in FIG. 9a, in step 900, all available products are read, sorted by the location code that was computed in step 802. This scan will produce all products the can be matched based on having the same location, and near dates).
As per claim 16, Kohavi discloses:
wherein the generating the unobscured demand forecast for the flight uses an unobscured bookings table, (DETX (17): The ARMS 104 also establishes a plurality of fare classes for the actual flights, utilizes historical data to forecast an expected demand over time for tickets within a given fare class at a given price, and initially allocates and prices inventory sufficient to satisfy the expected demand”).
As per claim 17, Kohavi discloses:
comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, the seat bookings in the additional fare class, (Kohavi (US 7136821) Description Paragraph - DETX (18): The ARMS will monitor the actual demand with each fare class relative to the forecasted demand to dynamically reevaluate the inventory allocated to both the actual flights and the airline special fare .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; }
listing. In accordance with the actual demand, the ARMS 104 will allocate additional inventory, lower the fare/class, reduce or eliminate the inventory or increase the fare/class).
Claim 4, 13, 14, 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 7136821 B1), and further in view of Walker (US 20050177402 A1)[Walker ‘402], and further in view of Walker (US 2010/0250291 A1) [Walker ‘291].
As per claim 4, Kohavi does not disclose:
comprising updating, by the one or more processors, a bookings table with the integer values to form an unconstrained bookings table.
(However, Walker (US 2010/0250291 A1), discloses in ([(0053], Once calculated, the initial seat allocation and pricing information is stored in the seat allocation database 245 and the pricing and restrictions database 250, respectively. The initial price for each fare class and the forecasted demand is also preferably stored in the forecasted demand analysis database 230;).;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '291 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 13, Kohavi does not disclose:
further comprising converting, by the one or more processors, the
unobscured demand for the one or more fare classes into integer values representing the seat
bookings in the respective fare classes.
However, (Walker (US 20050177402) discloses in ([0090] In step 1525, the RMS 200 determines whether the expected bookings on one or more of the actual flights exceeds the actual bookings for those flights. The RMS 200, in step 1530 of FIG. 15b, selects one of the actual flights as the flight on which to place the unspecified-time ticket holder. In step 1535, the RMS 200 updates the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and seat allocation database 245, accordingly. In particular, the RMS 200 accesses the forecasted demand analysis database 230 and modifies the record for the actual flight by incrementing the "Actual Quantity Booked" by "1". The RMS 200 also accesses the seat allocation database 245 and modifies the record for: (1) the actual flight by incrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1" and decrementing the "Total Seats Remaining" by "1"; and (2) the special fare listing by decrementing the "Total Inventory Booked" by "1").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '402 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, Kohavi does not disclose:
further comprising updating, by the one or more processors, a bookings table with the integer values to form an unobscured bookings table.
However, Walker '291 discloses: updating, by the one or more processors, the unobscured bookings table with the integer values to form an unconstrained bookings table, (However, Walker (US 2010/0250291 A1), discloses in ([(0053], Once calculated, the initial seat allocation and pricing information is stored in the seat allocation database 245 and the pricing and restrictions database 250, respectively. The initial price for each fare class and the forecasted demand is also preferably stored in the forecasted demand analysis database 230;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '291 in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 19, Kohavi does not discloses the following:
further comprising accessing, by the one or more processors, a bookings table, wherein the bookings table contains the unobscured demand forecast for the flight, and wherein the fare class in the plurality of fare classes is closed and contains none of the seat bookings; determining, by the one or more processors and using the seat bookings and the unobscured demand forecast, a monetary stimulation value of opening a closed class; determining, by the one or more processors and using the seat bookings and the unobscured demand forecast, a monetary dilution penalty of opening the closed class; and
generating, by the one or more processors, booking instructions based on the monetary stimulation
value and the monetary dilution penalty.
However, Walker '291 discloses in ([0074] In an effort to encourage sales, and thus, minimize the difference or gap (See FIG. 5) between the expected and actual quantity of tickets booked on the actual flights, the RMS 200, in step 1205, allocates inventory to the special fare listing at a lower fare/class than the currently available fare/class for the actual flights, based on the analysis in step 1200. As determined by the airline, inventory may be allocated to the special fare listing either at the time actual flights are created or, sometime thereafter, as a gap develops between the actual and the expected quantity of seats booked on the actual flights. In .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; } step 1210, the RMS 200 generates and stores a record of the inventory allocated to the special fare listing and the associated fare/class in the seat allocation database 245 and pricing and restrictions database 250, respectively.; [0076] In step 1210, the RMS 200 also transmits the inventory and fare/class information to the ARS 150. In step 1215, the ARS 150 stores the information locally and then transmits it to the CRS 300, directly, or via the ATP Co. 115. In step 1220, the CRS 300 also stores the allocated inventory and fare/class in the seat allocation database 245 and pricing and restrictions database 250, respectively; [0077] It is to be understood that an airline may allocate inventory to a special fare listing which requires traveler concessions in addition to flight-time flexibility. Fare discounts would then be commensurate with the degree of flexibility afforded the airline in placing the traveler aboard an actual flight. For example, the airline may offer unspecified-time tickets for particular fare classes only, such as first class (K Class), coach (Y Class), one-stop, etc. The airline may also choose to limit unspecified-time tickets to "groups" of travelers (e.g., two or more, or any other number specified by the airline). Further examples of such concessions of flexibility include, but are not limited to, (1) the origin (if there is more than one airport in the area local to the traveler); (2) the destination (if there is more than one airport accessible for the traveler's ultimate destination); (3) the maximum travel time; (4) the number of stops; (5) the number of plane changes; and (6) whether or not non-jet aircraft (e.g., propeller planes) are involved.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Walker '291 in the system of Kohavi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6, 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohavi (US 7136821 B1), and further in view of Walker (US 20050177402 A1) [Waker ‘402], and further in view of Campbell et al (US 5,918,209 A).
As per claim 6, Kohavi does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of fare classes is in a bookings table representing the seat bookings for the flight.
However, Campbell et al discloses in col. 21, lines 21-44: "FIG. 18 is a flow diagram of a method for generically determining marginal values for use in a client-specific perishable resource management system. Data is loaded using the client-specific load() function (block 210). As described hereinabove, the load() function is defined in the client-specific layer 192 as a derived class member for a particular client. The loaded data is mapped into the problem space for the industry-specific layer 191 and generic layer 190 (block 211). This mapping is accomplished through inheritance whereby the parent and grandparent classes that is, the industry-specific layer 191 derived abstract classes and generic layer 190 abstract class, instantiate client-specific objects to industry-specific and finally generic objects. Generic marginal values are then determined using the generic solve() function, such as shown in the perishable RMP class 194 (block 212) as further described herein below in FIG. 19. The generic marginal values are mapped back into the client-specific problem space, that is, to the particular client-specific layer 192 class (block 213). Finally, the marginal values as mapped from generic marginal values to client-specific marginal values are stored using the store() function contained in the client-specific layer 192 class (block 214)."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Campbell et al in the systems of Kohavi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Kohavi does not disclose:
wherein the seat bookings occurred during a first time period
However, Campbell discloses: (Col. 19, lines 5-12: FIG. 14B shows, by way of example, a demand point list 140 for the ORD-JFK flight leg departure 31. The first entry in this list, entry 141a, corresponds to the first demand record 39 in the demand records list 38 for the flight path departure 10 ORD-JFK-LHR-CDG as shown in FIG. 3. The first demand point encountered in the associated set of demand records 39 corresponds to the booking class price 40 of $500).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Campbell in the system of Kohavi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18, Kohavi does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of fare classes is configured with parent-child relationships, and
wherein, in the calculating the unobscured demand: the unobscured demand for a child class is used as the upper bound for an EM algorithm as applied to a parent class, top-down bookings for a class in question are used as the lower bound for the EM algorithm as applied to the parent class, and
the EM algorithm is iteratively executed until a convergent solution for the unobscured demand is
obtained for the fare class.
However, Campbell (US 5,918,209) discloses in col. 21, lines 21-44: "FIG. 18 is a flow diagram of a method for generically determining marginal values for use in a client-specific perishable resource management system. Data is loaded using the client-specific load() function (block 210). As described hereinabove, the load() function is defined in the client-specific layer 192 as a derived class member for a particular client. The loaded data is mapped into the problem space for the industry-specific layer 191 and generic layer 190 (block 211). This mapping is accomplished through inheritance whereby the parent and grandparent classes that is, the industry-specific layer 191 derived abstract classes and generic layer 190 abstract class, instantiate client-specific objects to industry-specific and finally generic objects. Generic marginal values are then determined using the generic solve() function, such as shown in the perishable RMP class 194 (block 212) as further described herein below in FIG. 19. The generic marginal values are mapped back into the client-specific problem space, that is, to the particular client- specific layer 192 class (block 213). Finally, the marginal values as mapped from generic marginal values to client-specific marginal values are stored using the store() function contained in the client-specific layer 192 class (block 214)."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Campbell in the system of Kohavi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 20, Kohavi does not disclose:
accessing, by the one or more processors, a bookings table, wherein the bookings table further
contains information representing a net prime class seat booking for the flight, and wherein the net prime class seat booking occurred during a first time period; determining, by the one or more processors, a floor class for the net prime class seat booking in the bookings table; determining, by the one or more processors, a displacement class for a net prime class seat bookings in the bookings table;
determining, by the one or more processors, a target class for the net prime class seat bookings in
the bookings table, wherein the target class is the higher of the floor class and the displacement class; and remapping, by the one or more processors, the net prime class seat bookings in the bookings table
into the target class to form a remapped bookings table.
However, Campbell et al discloses in col. 21, lines 21-44: "FIG. 18 is a flow diagram of a method for generically determining marginal values for use in a client-specific perishable resource management system. Data is loaded using the client-specific load() function (block 210). As described hereinabove, the load() function is defined in the client-specific layer 192 as a derived class member for a particular client. The loaded data is mapped into the problem space for the industry-specific layer 191 and generic layer 190 (block 211). This mapping is accomplished through inheritance whereby the parent and grandparent classes that is, the industry-specific layer 191 derived abstract classes and generic layer 190 .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; } abstract class, instantiate client-specific objects to industry-specific and finally generic objects. Generic marginal values are then determined using the generic solve() function, such as shown in the perishable RMP class 194 (block 212) as further described herein below in FIG. 19. The generic marginal values are mapped back into the client-specific problem space, that is, to the particular client-specific layer 192 class (block 213). Finally, the marginal values as mapped from generic marginal values to client-specific marginal values are stored using the store() function contained in the client-specific layer 192 class (block 214)."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Campbell in the system of Kohavi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
June 11, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights