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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because the redundant phrase “results provided for display are provided for display.” Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. Claims 1 and 20 are substantial duplicates because they only differ with respect to a label or type of an object (airport) and pars. 97, 98, 212, 220, 221 of the published application make it clear that regardless of a selected name/type of an airport, the output is exactly the same. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
20150356446
Par. 158, fig. 53
Top search result is visually more prominent with brighter bolder text (highlighted)
20120124547
Par. 38
Highlighted, more prominently displayed search result
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 include “the initially highlighted result”, “the highlighted search result” and claims 7 and 18 include “the set of alternative search results.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 9-10, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 includes “The method of Claim 1, in which after having determined their preferred search result, following interaction with the user interface, a user may make a final selection of the preferred search result, and proceed to booking and payment.” It is not clear what the scope is because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “determined their preferred search result,” the phrases “following interaction with the user interface” and “proceed to booking and payment” are unclear in their meaning, and the phrase "may" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention.
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 1-3, 11-14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 29 of U.S. Patent No. 11294912 and claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12361011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are encompassed by the patented claims.
Claim 4-10 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 25, 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11294912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between instant claims 4-10, 15-19 and patented claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 25, 33 are that the instant claims are cast in terms of a flight search and recite displaying resulting alternatives on a map and these differences do not render the instant claims patentably distinct. An airport is just one species of the “attribute” whose variation the patented claims already recite, and displaying the resulting alternatives “on a map” rather than in a list is an obvious design choice and so the instant claims are an obvious variation of the patented claims. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the patented claims alternative airport results on a map in order to let the user readily see and compare the alternative airports’ locations with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 4-10 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 23-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12361011 for the same reasons.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11663226. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are encompassed by the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it 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. Claim 12 is directed to a server which is neither claimed nor disclosed as requiring hardware elements. Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to a computer program which is not patent eligible subject matter. Dependent claims 13-19 are likewise rejected. Examiner recommends amending the claims to clarify that the server is hardware.
Dependent claims 3-11, which are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter, and dependent claims 14-19, which can be amended to be directed to non-statutory subject matter as indicated above (MPEP 2106.03 II), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Note that MPEP 2106.07 includes “…even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein.”
With respect to dependent claims 4, 11, 15, the searching, identifying, determine, select cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving, showing, providing limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 16, 17 the pre-processed, grouped covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19 receiving, providing, cached, display are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greystoke et al., Pub. No.: US 20150012467 A1, hereinafter Greystoke.
As per claim 1, Greystoke discloses A computer-implemented method of showing available arrival airports in a user interface, the method including the steps of:
(i) receiving a flight search request, the flight search request including an arrival airport in a city with multiple airports (see at least pars. 266, 277);
(ii) showing on a map in the user interface available arrival airports which are alternatives to the arrival airport in the city with multiple airports (see at least pars. 266, 277, 310).
As per claim 2, Greystoke discloses The method of Claim 1, in which step (ii) does not include showing a list of available alternative arrival airports (see Greystoke as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above and note that only a visual map based display is shown).
As per claims 12, 13, 20 they are analogous, or similar, to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. Regarding departure airports of claim 20, see Greystoke as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodziak et al., Pub. No.: US 20140052714 A1, hereinafter Brodziak in view of Shaam et al., Pub. No.: US 20140149157 A1, hereinafter Shaam.
As per claim 1, Brodziak discloses A computer-implemented method of showing available arrival airports in a user interface, the method including the steps of: (i) receiving a flight search request, the flight search request including an arrival airport in a city with multiple airports (see at least pars. 39, 44, 50-54, 61); (ii) showing […] in the user interface available arrival airports which are alternatives to the arrival airport in the city with multiple airports (see above mapping as well as at least pars. 57-59).
Brodziak does not explicitly disclose showing on a map as claimed. However, Shaam discloses showing, on a map as claimed in at least pars. 6, 33, 36-38, 41, 66, 77, 99.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Shaam would have allowed Brodziak to display alternative airports of a multi-airport (arrival and/or departure) city on a map in order to allow a user to visually see and compare a city’s airports directly on a map to arrive at more relevant and user friendly flight search system that also enables for “the travel options [to] be compared with respect to elapsed time for the trip and cost, and travel options that have favorable cost” (see Shaam as cited above including par. 25).
As per claim 2, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 1, in which step (ii) does not include showing a list of available alternative arrival airports (see Shaam as cited above including par. 77 which includes “display of the airports close to a location” on a map. Note that such a map-only based presentation provides a user with the information and so a duplicative list presentation is not needed).
As per claim 3, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 1, in which before step (i), when an airport in a city with multiple airports is selected as the arrival airport, a list of available alternative arrival airports is shown (Brodziak, pars. 52, 54).
As per claim 4, Brodziak as modified discloses the method of Claim 1, including the steps of: (a) searching a database to provide a first set of a plurality of search results, each search result including a plurality of attributes; (b) identifying a best search result as the initially highlighted result; (c) providing the highlighted search result for display (Brodziak, pars. 39, 44, 50-52 disclose flight search query and flight search results and Shaam, pars. 25-26, 45, 48-50, 58-61, 67-80 disclose travel planning search engine that provides search results with several attributes, and a summary table. Also, note Shaam discloses a flight search result at the top with bolded and larger font (i.e. highlighted). Claim interpretation note: in step (c), just one single search result is required to be displayed (which can be what makes it highlighted));
As per claim 5, Brodziak as modified discloses the method of Claim 4, in which the first set of search results is pre-processed to create an interim database (Shaam, pars. 37-41, 46-51 wherein the travel graph and cache structure correspond to the claimed interim database).
As per claim 6, Brodziak as modified discloses the method of Claim 5, in which in the interim database, closely-connected attributes are grouped together (see rejection of claim 5, Shaam, pars. 37-41, 46-51 wherein connection relationships are closely connected attributes grouped together in the travel graph (i.e. interim database)).
As per claim 7, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 4, including the steps of: (d) receiving a selection of an attribute in the highlighted search result; (e) providing the set of alternative search results, in which the selected attribute is varied with respect to the highlighted search result, and (f) providing the set of alternative search results for display (Brodziak, pars. 50-64 disclose selecting flight search dimensions and map or designation elements that update flight search interface based on selection and Shaam pars. 61, 67-69, 80-92 disclose filtering, sorting, comparing travel options based on attributes).
As per claim 8, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 4, in which the first set of search results is cached in a cache database (Shaam, pars. 37-41, 46-51, 99-100).
As per claim 9, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 4, in which results provided for display are provided for display on a screen of a mobile device, such as a smartphone, a smart watch, a laptop or a tablet computer (Brodziak pars. 50-52, Shaam, pars. 25, 27, 104-107)
As per claim 10, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 4, in which results provided for display are provided for display on a screen of a fixed device, such as a desktop computer, or a TV (Brodziak pars. 50-52, Shaam, pars. 25, 27, 104-107).
As per claim 11, Brodziak as modified discloses The method of Claim 1, in which after having determined their preferred search result, following interaction with the user interface, a user may make a final selection of the preferred search result, and proceed to booking and payment (see Brodziak, pars. 39, 44, 50-52 and Shaam, pars. 25-26, 45, 48-50, 58-61, 67-80).
As per claims 12-20, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. Regarding departure airports of claim 20, see Brodziak and Shaam as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights