Jump to content

Patent Application 18104615 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUOTING AND BOOKING - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18104615 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUOTING AND BOOKING

Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUOTING AND BOOKING AIRCRAFT SERVICES

Application Information

  • Invention Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUOTING AND BOOKING AIRCRAFT SERVICES
  • Application Number: 18104615
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-01T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2023-02-01T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 705
  • National Sub-Class: 005000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 92527
  • Art Unit: 3628
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    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 response to the claims filed February 20, 2025 and the remarks filed December 17, 2024.
Claims 1-16 and 22 have been amended.
Claims 17-21 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 and 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in response to the replacement sheets filed December 17, 2024.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in response to the submitted claim amendments. 
Applicant’s arguments filed December 17, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
Step 2A - Prong 1 
The Claims Are Directed to the Notion of Security 
The Office Action assert that "claims 1 and 22, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of messaging a booking request, receiving quotes, and booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange, which is a method of organizing human activity." Office Action, pg. 4. However, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 22 to be directed to "improving authentication of users who are procuring aircraft services via text messaging on mobile devices." Further, Applicant has also amended the claims to recite additional features (i.e., language associated with "authenticate the user of the mobile device by:") that describe the process for authenticating the users. In other words, the claims, as a whole, are now directed to the notion of security which is not a method of organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that even if the claims were directed to the notion of security, the claimed notion of security is still abstract. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting providing quotes for aircraft services requested by a user. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting authentication rules for using a messaging platform as a travel agent to book aircraft services.  See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
Step 2A - Prong 2 
Applicant submits that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application because the features of claim 1 provide an improvement in technology. First, the features recited in claim 1 solve a technical problem within the area of security, namely the procurement of aircraft services using text messaging. To provide greater context into this area, Applicant wishes to point out that, as is well-known, the procurement of aircraft services is almost always performed by using a web-browser or an app. It is not usually performed via text messaging because of the associated security risks (text messaging is less secure than logging in via a web-browser or an app).  
Nevertheless, text messaging offers advantages over web-browsers and apps. It is much quicker to perform communication using text messaging. Further, text messaging uses much less data, thereby allowing use in areas where signal strength is low. However, as discussed above, text messaging is less secure. Charlatans or malicious actors may easily pose as their victims via text messaging (as is evident with present day scammers). As such, the features recited in claim 1 solve such aforementioned problems by reciting different types of authentication actions (e.g.,, "verifying that the user is registered with the aircraft services," "receiving a trust score ... that is associated with a trustworthiness of a combination of the user and the mobile device," and "transmitting ... an authentication message [including] a prompt for the user to provide one or more credentials to be authenticated") that allows a user to be securely authenticated via text messaging, thereby allowing procurements of aircraft services to be performed without being in danger of fraud.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The solution of authenticating users is not unique to text messaging and is not a solution to a technological problem. Combatting charlatans, malicious actors, and day scammers is a business problem, not a technological problem, and providing authentication before booking is a business solution to the fraud identified by Applicant. 

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
Step 2B 
As discussed previously, users can procure aircraft services using text messaging, in which the user may be authenticated via multiple actions each corresponding to a different type of authentication. Applicant submits that a well-understood, routine, and conventional approach for authenticating a user would not involve any of the aforementioned actions. Instead, the well-understood, routine, and conventional approach involves merely requesting users to procure aircraft services via a web browser (or an app) and submit at least their login information (e.g., a username and password) to be authenticated ("traditional login process"). The username and password may each be validated based on the corresponding hash in the username/password database. 
In addition, it should also be noted that the authentication process as recited in claims 1 and 22 can be performed much quicker than the traditional login process since a single text message (assuming the trust score is above the predetermined threshold) is enough to authenticate the user, while in the traditional login method, multiple steps (e.g., opening the website or app, waiting for loading times, typing in the username and password, etc.) must be performed, which can be slow and cumbersome.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations identified by Applicant are a part of the identified abstract idea of messaging a booking request, authenticating a user, and booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange, which is a method of organizing human activity.

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
Lazauskas, Shahidzadeh, and Samarthyam 
Applicant submits that none of the references (i.e., Lazauskas, Shahidzadeh, and Samarthyam) disclose the following features recited in claim 1: 
wherein the verification is performed by determining whether the information associated with the identification indicia indicates that at least one of the user and mobile device has been associated with previous attempts to procure aircraft services; 
wherein the authentication message includes a prompt for the user to provide one or more credentials to be authenticated, and wherein the one or more credentials are transmitted to the authentication system; and 
wherein the authentication results indicate that the one or more credentials provided by the user have been verified by the authentication system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, Shahidzadeh discloses the claimed authentication procedure by comparing a trust score to a level of assurance and requesting additional credentials when a trust score needs a higher level of assurance. 

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
However, as made clear in the above citation [Col. 25 Lines 17-23], the level of assurance corresponds to the probability (i.e., subjective) that the user poses a threat to the safety of others (e.g., is a terrorist, hijacker, bomber, criminal, etc.). In other words, the "level of assurance" is not a "number in a predetermined range that is associated with a trustworthiness of a combination of the user and the mobile device," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection below, the trust score of Shahidzadeh has been mapped to the trust score in the claims (Shahidzadeh (Col. 9 Lines 45-57) Trust score is as an aggregate of confidence where the level of assurance is the required level of trust; (Col. 14 Lines 7-41) trust score calculated by risk engine; (Col. 15 Lines 35-40) cognitive engine provides a trust score in evaluating the level of verification; (Col. 16 Lines 37-62) cognitive engine uses history tables that record the user entities habits of the user entity device). The level of assurance in Shahidzadeh has been mapped to the threshold in the claims (Shahidzadeh (Col. 5 Lines 49-55) Level of assurance is a level of confidence for identity proofing and is a required level of trust (i.e., threshold) to allow access to a service). In Shahidzadeh a trust score must exceed the level of assurance in order to assist in bookings (Shahidzadeh (Col. 10 Lines 28-32) risk engine may determine a level of assurance and whether a trust score for the user entity meets the level of assurance; (Col. 11 Lines 52-55), (Col. 12 Lines 10-15) requires trust score to meet a level of assurance before it will assist in bookings). 

Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
As discussed in col. 25, lines 17-23 (reproduced above), the identity provider 110 determines the level of assurance (equated in the Office Action to the "trust score" recited in claim 1) corresponding to the user entity 102. Presumably, the user entity 102 may be denied entry (with no further methods of authentication being performed) in case that the level of assurance corresponding to the user entity 102 is not granted. 
However, in the case the level of assurance is granted, the user entity device 104 is further authenticated based on (1) the user entity device 104 identification, and (2) the biometric and biobehavioral analysis corresponding to the user (equated to the "prompt" recited in claim 1). In other words, the push notification is sent to the user entity device 104 in case that the user entity 102 does not pass the level of assurance. 
In contrast, the authentication message (including prompt for the user to provide one or more credentials to be authenticated) is sent to the mobile device "after determining that the trust score is less than a predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 1. In other words, as is evident, such determination in claim 1 is the opposite of the determination performed in Shahidzadeh.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shahidzadeh discloses requesting additional verification for higher levels of assurance. (Shahidzadeh (Col. 24 lines 36-39) upon initiation of a transaction with a higher level of assurance the system may ask the user entity for additional verification to authorize the transaction).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.


Claims 1-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-16 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claim 22 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 22, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of messaging a booking request, authenticating a user, and booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting providing quotes for aircraft services requested by a user. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting authentication rules for using a messaging platform as a travel agent to book aircraft services.  See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The method of organizing human activity of “messaging a booking request, authenticating a user, and booking selected aircraft services for an authenticated user based on the message exchange,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving an aircraft service request, transmitting identification indicia, receiving a trust score, transmitting a prompt for credentials, authenticating the user, generating aircraft service options, transmitting aircraft service options, and transmitting procurement confirmation for a reserved aircraft service. The mere nominal recitation of a mobile device, a text message, a memory, and a processor does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3-10, 12, 14, and 16, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: determining information is missing, determining options for the missing information, requesting the missing information from the user, receiving additional request information, extracting the additional information from the request, updating a procurement record, determining ground transport options, transmitting ground transport options, determining catering options, transmitting catering options, generating quotes, determining temporary flight restrictions, generating an alternate route, transmitting the alternate route, and authenticating the user.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 22 recites the additional elements: a mobile device, a text message, a memory, and a processor. These mobile device, memory, and processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The text message is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic type of data to be transmitted and received), and amounts to a type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually 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. 
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of a travel agent in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing travel agent booking process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a mobile device, a memory, and a processor. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies). The claims recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by providing a user interface, and responding to a user interface using the computer's ordinary ability to display and process data inputs. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) accessing information through a mobile interface Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co.; Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.) The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a mobile device (Specification p. 11), a text message (Specification p. 11), a memory (Specification p. 37), and a processor (Specification p. 36). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a mobile device, a memory, and a processor. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) by reciting text messages. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting text messages. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2, 11, 13, and 15, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.

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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vadodaria (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0068551 A1), hereinafter Vadodaria, in view of Shahidzadeh (U.S. 10,922,631 B1), hereinafter Shahidzadeh, in view of Samarthyam et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0140057 A1), hereinafter Samarthyam.

Claim 1. 
Vadodaria discloses a computerized method for improving authentication of users who are procuring aircraft services via text messaging on mobile devices, the method comprising: 
receiving a request from a user for one or more aircraft service options via a text message generated by a text messaging application on a mobile device of the user, wherein the text message includes identification indicia that is associated with at least one user and the mobile device (Vadodaria [0056], [0058], [0060] main processor; [0096], [0360], [0372], [0385], [0401] user enters input string; [0099] input “I want you to search flights for me” which is incomplete and requires a dialog session to gather unspecified parameters; [0057], [0063] text message; [0072] received messages are associated with a user account; [0008], [0013] device electronic identity number);
Vadodaria discloses that based on the mobile device, messages are associated with a user record corresponding to the user (Vadodaria [0072] received messages are associated with a user account). However, Vadodaria does not disclose the following limitations, but Shahidzadeh does: 
authenticating the user of the mobile device (Shahidzadeh Fig. 7 Items 702-718 (Col. 25 Lines 11-40) user device is authenticated) by:
transmitting the identification indicia to an authentication system after verifying that the user is registered with the aircraft services, wherein the verification is performed by determining whether the information associated with the identification indicia indicates that at least one of the user and mobile device has been associated with previous attempts to procure aircraft services (Shahidzadeh (Col. 15 Lines 35-40) cognitive engine provides a trust score in evaluating the level of verification; (Col. 16 Lines 37-62) cognitive engine uses history tables that record the user entities habits of the user entity device; Fig. 7 Item 702, (Col. 25 lines 11-13) receive an “I am here” announcement; Fig. 7 Item 704-708, (Col. 25 Lines 13-17) identity match request); 
receiving a trust score from the authentication system, wherein the trust score is a number in a predetermined range that is associated with a trustworthiness of a combination of the user and the mobile device (Shahidzadeh (Col. 9 Lines 45-57) Trust score is defined as an aggregate of confidence where the level of assurance is the required level of trust; (Col. 14 Lines 7-41) trust score calculated by risk engine; Fig. 7 Item 710, (Col. 25 Lines 17-23) determine whether to grant a level of assurance);
transmitting, via text messaging, an authentication message to the mobile device after determining that the trust score is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the authentication message includes a prompt for the user to provide one or more credentials to be authenticated, and wherein the one or more credentials are transmitted to the authentication system (Shahidzadeh (Col. 5 Lines 49-55) Level of assurance is defined as a level of confidence for identity proofing; (Col. 10 Lines 28-32) risk engine may determine a level of assurance and whether a trust score for the user entity meets the level of assurance; (Col. 11 Lines 52-55), (Col. 12 Lines 10-15) requires trust score to meet a level of assurance before it will assist in bookings; (Col. 24 lines 36-39) upon initiation of a transaction with a higher level of assurance the system may ask the user entity for additional verification to authorize the transaction; Fig. 7 Items 712-714, (Col. 25 Lines 23-30) biometric information used for authentication); and
authenticating the user after receiving an authentication result from the authentication system indicating that the one or more credentials provided by the user have been verified by the authentication system (Shahidzadeh (Col. 24 lines 36-39) upon initiation of a transaction with a higher level of assurance the system may ask the user entity for additional verification to authorize the transaction; Fig. 7 Items 716-718, (Col. 25 Lines 30-40) identity confirmation is sent from the identity provider to relying party);
The known technique authenticating a user device of Shahidzadeh, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Vadodaria as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are performing user specific activities via messaging with a device that depend on the identity of the user operating the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of authenticating a user device of Shahidzadeh to the messaging system of Vadodaria would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shahidzadeh to the teaching of Vadodaria 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 authenticating a user device features into user specific messaging systems. Further, applying user authentication to Vadodaria, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow a user to have their account information accessed without requiring excessive data entry. 
Vadodaria discloses: 
facilitating the procurement of aircraft services after authentication the user by: 
generating one or more aircraft service options based on one or more criteria provided by the user in the request and the previous procurements of aircraft services by the user (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0098] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0099], [0136] basic parameters include start location, destination location, a travel date/time etc and optionally a return date etc; [0100] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0103] Natural Language Processing/Understanding engine analyzes user input; [0105] search criteria is sent to the Travel Backend Proxy; [0107] Travel Backend gateway receives the data and gives out the results for the query e.g. If the user wanted to Search flights from A to B on Date D at Time T, then the travel gateway responds back with the Flight Results Data including various legs of the itinerary, total cost, date and time etc; [0397], [0398], [0588] travel criteria are identified; [0606] determine optimal flight search result);
transmitting, via text messaging, one or more aircraft service options to the mobile device for selection by the user (Vadodaria [0109] the natural language generation engine generates a sentence to be sent back to the user; [0119]-[0121] client device receives the response; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
Vadodaria discloses booking flights (Vadodaria [0089], [0098], [0105], [0136] booking a flight). However, Vadodaria does not disclose the following limitations, but Samarthyam does: 
transmitting, via text messaging, a procurement confirmation after causing an aircraft service to be reserved for the user based on an aircraft service option selected by the user from the one or more aircraft service options (Samarthyam [0103] receive user input confirming the travel plan; [0084], [0104] generate booking details; [0086], [0107] display booking details). 
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automated the booking procedure by using booking messages as taught by Samarthyam in the messaging system of Vadodaria in order to create an end-to-end system that allows one platform for search and booking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the automated booking procedure as taught by Samarthyam in the messaging system of Vadodaria, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel bookings, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Samarthyam’s system with the improved functionality to follow through with the travel search by providing booking through the messaging system.

Claim 2. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
wherein the procurement confirmation is associated with a procurement record identifier that is transmitted to the user along with the procurement confirmation (Samarthyam [0103] receive user input confirming the travel plan; [0084], [0104] generate booking details; [0086], [0107] display booking details).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Samarthyam in the system of Vadodaria for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.

Claim 3. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that departure airport information is missing from the one or more criteria in the request (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0097] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs)
determining one or more departure airport options based on at least one of the previous procurement of aircraft services by the user, procurement preferences associated with the user, and a location of the mobile device (Vadodaria [0585] travel selection criteria include start location, destination location, start date, return date, preferred time, airline preference, no. of people traveling, no. of stopovers, preferred stopover location etc. [0588] search parameter scorecard; [0599], [0609] search criteria are displayed; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
transmitting, via text messaging, an information request for missing departure airport information, wherein the information request includes the one or more departure airport options (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs).

Claim 4. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that arrival airport information is missing from the one or more criteria in the request (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0097] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs); 
determining one or more arrival airport options based on at least one of the previous procurement of aircraft services by the user and procurement preferences associated with the user (Vadodaria [0585] travel selection criteria include start location, destination location, start date, return date, preferred time, airline preference, no. of people traveling, no. of stopovers, preferred stopover location etc. [0588] search parameter scorecard; [0599], [0609] search criteria are displayed; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
transmitting, via text messaging, an information request for missing arrival airport information, wherein the information request includes the one or more arrival airport options (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs).

Claim 5. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that departure time information is missing from the one or more criteria in the request (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0097] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs); 
determining one or more departure time options based on at least one of the previous procurement of aircraft services by the user, procurement preferences associated with the user, and a current time (Vadodaria [0585] travel selection criteria include start location, destination location, start date, return date, preferred time, airline preference, no. of people traveling, no. of stopovers, preferred stopover location etc. [0588] search parameter scorecard; [0599], [0609] search criteria are displayed; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
transmitting, via text messaging, an information request for missing departure time information, wherein the information request includes the one or more departure time options (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs).

Claim 6. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that arrival time information is missing from the one or more criteria in the request (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0097] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs); 
determining one or more arrival time options based on at least one of the previous procurement of aircraft services by the user, procurement preferences associated with the user, and a current time (Vadodaria [0585] travel selection criteria include start location, destination location, start date, return date, preferred time, airline preference, no. of people traveling, no. of stopovers, preferred stopover location etc. [0588] search parameter scorecard; [0599], [0609] search criteria are displayed; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
transmitting, via text messaging, an information request for missing arrival time information, wherein the information request includes the one or more arrival time options (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs).

Claim 7. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that passenger count information is missing from the one or more criteria in the request, wherein the passenger count information includes the number of passengers to be included in the procurement aircraft services (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0097] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs); 
determining one or more passenger count options based on at least one of the previous procurement of aircraft services by the user and procurement preferences associated with the user (Vadodaria [0585] travel selection criteria include start location, destination location, start date, return date, preferred time, airline preference, no. of people traveling, no. of stopovers, preferred stopover location etc. [0588] search parameter scorecard; [0599], [0609] search criteria are displayed; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and
transmitting, via text messaging, an information request for missing passenger count information, wherein the information request includes the one or more passenger count options, and wherein one of the one or more passenger count options is to be selected by the user (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs).

Claim 8. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
receiving, via text messaging, additional information associated with the request, wherein the additional information is received before or after the procurement confirmation has been transmitted to the user (Vadodaria [0100], [0601], [0602] dialog session gathers missing parameters; [0614] check for missing inputs);
extracting, from the additional information, at least one of passenger name information, pet name information, catering information, ground transportation information, and passport information (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0098] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0099], [0136] basic parameters include start location, destination location, a travel date/time etc and optionally a return date etc; [0103] Natural Language Processing/Understanding engine analyzes user input; [0105] search criteria is sent to the Travel Backend Proxy; [0397], [0398], [0588] travel criteria are identified); and
updating a user procurement record based on the additional information (Vadodaria [0097] server receives user input; [0098] conversation management stores user session for request operation e.g. searching/booking flights; [0099], [0136] basic parameters include start location, destination location, a travel date/time etc and optionally a return date etc; [0103] Natural Language Processing/Understanding engine analyzes user input; [0105] search criteria is sent to the Travel Backend Proxy; [0397], [0398], [0588] travel criteria are identified).

Claim 9. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining one or more ground transportation based on at least one of the previous procurements of aircraft services by the user, procurement preferences associated with the user, departure airport information, arrival airport information, a location of the mobile device, and a current time (Vadodaria [0013], [0018] remote ground transportation options; [0458] rental car availability; [0460], [0462] mode of transportation options includes vehicles);
transmitting, via text messaging, the one or more ground transportation options (Vadodaria [0013], [0018] remote ground transportation options; [0458] rental car availability; [0460], [0462] mode of transportation options includes vehicles).

Claim 10. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as shown above. However, Vadodaria does not disclose the following limitations, but Samarthyam does:
determining one or more catering options based on at least one of the previous procurements of aircraft services by the user, procurement preference associated with the user, departure airport information, arrival airport information, a location of the mobile device, and a current time (Samarthyam [0135] generate food options based on a shared schedule such as a departure flight at a same time);
transmitting, via text messaging, the one or more catering options (Samarthyam [0135] generate food options based on a shared schedule such as a departure flight at a same time).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include food options in an itinerary as taught by Samarthyam in the messaging system of Vadodaria in order to allow a user to locate food options that are convenient to their existing travel plans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the automated booking procedure as taught by Samarthyam in the messaging system of Vadodaria, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of travel bookings, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Samarthyam’s system with the improved functionality to allow a user to locate food options that are convenient to their existing travel plans.

Claim 11. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Vadodaria does not disclose the following limitation, but Shahidzadeh does:
generating a quote for each of the aircraft service options based on subscription information associated with a user procurement record (Shahidzadeh (Col. 27 Lines 53-67) tier based member services are reviewed to see if the user is a member and use that to offer sell ups to a user).
The known technique checking for tier-based member services as a source of travel options of Shahidzadeh, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Vadodaria as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are providing travel booking services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of checking tier-based member services as a source of travel options of Shahidzadeh to travel booking services of Vadodaria would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shahidzadeh to the teaching of Vadodaria 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 membership-based offer features into travel booking systems. Further, applying membership-based offers to Vadodaria, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient search for the best offers because membership-based services often offer the best prices to their members. 

Claim 12. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
generating one or more quotes for the aircraft service options, wherein a quote of the one or more quotes is indicated as a preferred quote based on departure airport information, arrival airport information, passenger count information, and pricing information corresponding to the one or more quotes (Vadodaria [0590] highlighting results based on preferences; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result).

Claim 13. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
wherein each of the one or more aircraft service options includes at least one of a quote, departure airport information, arrival airport information, departure data information, arrival data information, departure time information, arrival time information, and a passenger count information (Vadodaria [0590] highlighting results based on preferences; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result). 

Claim 14. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
determining that a temporary flight restriction has made unavailable potential aircraft service options that correspond to the one or more criteria provided by the user in the request (Vadodaria [0109] “I am sorry, I could not search flights from LAX to JFK tomorrow at around 8pm”; [0113] backend gateway may be unavailable);
generating an alternate route option having at least one of different departure airport information, different arrival airport information, different departure date information, and different departure time information (Vadodaria [0417] determine optimal mode of transportation; [0578]-[0579] suggest the most optimal mode of travel if the user has not selected the most optimal mode of travel; [0590] highlighting results based on preferences; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result); and 
transmitting, via text messaging, an alternate route option (Vadodaria [0590] highlighting results based on preferences; [0607], [0638] scroll to the optimal result and zoom in on it by display all the relevant details of the flight result).

Claim 15. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Additionally, Vadodaria discloses:
wherein the alternate route option is generated based on at least one of traffic patterns, airspace flow programs, and temporary flight restrictions (Vadodaria [0109] “I am sorry, I could not search flights from LAX to JFK tomorrow at around 8pm”; [0113] backend gateway may be unavailable).

Claim 16. 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Vadodaria does not disclose the following limitations, but Shahidzadeh does:
authenticating the user in a case that the trust score is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (Shahidzadeh (Col. 5 Lines 49-55) Level of assurance is defined as a level of confidence for identity proofing; (Col. 10 Lines 28-32) risk engine may determine a level of assurance and whether a trust score for the user entity meets the level of assurance; (Col. 11 Lines 52-55), (Col. 12 Lines 10-15) requires trust score to meet a level of assurance before it will assist in bookings; (Col. 24 lines 36-39) upon initiation of a transaction with a higher level of assurance the system may ask the user entity for additional verification to authorize the transaction; Fig. 7 Items 702-718 (Col. 25 Lines 11-40) user device is authenticated). 
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of Shahidzadeh in the system of Vadodaria for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.

Claim 22. 
Vadodaria discloses a system for improving authentication of users who are procuring aircraft services via text messaging on mobile devices, the system comprising:
a memory (Vadodaria [0056], [0058]); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Vadodaria [0056], [0058], [0060] main processor), the processor executing a software module configured to: 
Vadodaria in view of Shahidzadeh and Samarthyam teaches all of the remaining elements of claim 22, as shown above in claim 1.

Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.





/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.