Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Publication Number: US20120254261

The claims made by American Express Travel Services in Patent Application us20120254261 are so generic that most of them are already widely implemented by a large number of travel companies.

The prior art exists for nearly all the claims, so I am not sure how narrowly the US Patent Office might grant a portion of this application, or whether it will be rejected in its entirety.

Claim 1:

A method comprising:

  • Collecting, by a computer based system for creating a digital travel record, at least one of transaction account data particular to a transaction account, global distribution system data particular to a transaction account holder, and passenger name record data particular to a transaction account holder;

  • Modifying, by the computer based system, the collected data for integration with a service oriented architecture framework; and

  • Delivering, by the computer based system, the modified data as a module for use by an application.

share|improve this question

This seems like probably a good place to start:

"A template may provide a layout for pictures and information about the flights he took, hotels he stayed at, places he visited, restaurants he went to, people he met, and other activities on the trip. The website may automatically abstract the user's flight information from a travel website and fill in the information at places for such information on the template."

share|improve this answer

Interesting prior art.

This case was rejected on 9/26/14. The applicant responded on 1/24/14. The examiner should issue another office action very shortly.

Theoretically the USPTO is forwarding prior art we cite on Ask Patents to the examiner. It will be interesting to see if the examiner cites US 2009/0313679 in the next office action. If the examiner does, that will provide strong motivation to continue to seek prior art.

If you want to see the details of the rejection and response, I've posted them here. The documents are in reverse chronological order.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.