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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 21, 31, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20, 22, 26, 32, and 36 are canceled. Claims 21, 23-25, 27-31, 33-35, and 37-41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Examiner disagrees. The claim limitations are directed to optimizing the use of an aircraft fleet to transport users, and correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, commercial interactions, etc.), as evidenced by limitations disclosing analyzing data indicative of possible requests for transport services for passengers, computing demand for transport services, and sending routing instructions to the aircraft. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear from the specification (including the claim language) that claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. See for example, [0017] of the applicant’s specification disclosing that demand prediction and network optimization processes may be used to coordinate the provision of transport services. By optimizing the use of the VTOL aircraft fleet, the total power usage and wear and tear may be reduced while still saving riders significant amounts of time relative to ground-based transportation. Applicant attempts to highlight a few examples that are listed in the MPEP as to say that their claims are not similar to the examples, but the examples are just that; examples. The list of examples are not exhaustive and are provided as a courtesy to provide insight, but not to be used to limit the grouping(s) to only those examples listed. Coordinating transportation services for passengers or riders, even with using VTOL aircrafts to provide the transport services, are unequivocally certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, the claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (evaluation, observation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations directed to the observation and evaluation of transport service requests and computing an updated route based on future demand for transport services and the observed or evaluated battery levels of the aircrafts. Routing instructions for the transport vehicle are generated or computed based on the observed and evaluated data (judgment/opinion). Applicant makes no argument for this grouping, and it is noted that even in the event that the claims do not fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (which examiner does not concede), the claims still fall within the mental processes grouping under Step 2A Prong One. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong Two because the claims improve the functioning of VTOL aircraft by reducing the total amount of power used and/or reducing wear and tear. Examiner disagrees. The alleged reduction of battery power usage and/or wear and tear of the VTOL aircraft is a result of finding an optimal route which may reduce travel time, etc. This is similar to reducing fuel usage (or increasing fuel efficiency) for a vehicle by selecting or computing an optimal route that may be shorter, and reduces other routing factors that may contribute to higher fuel usage. Here, the usage is related to a battery, but the same concept applies. At best, the alleged improvement would be an improvement in the judicial exception itself, and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. An alleged improvement in efficient use of VTOL aircrafts by analyzing and observing data in order to compute an optimal route that will maximize the number of people transported, and reduce battery power and wear and tear is at best an improvement in the service or business processes that constitutes the service, but not a technical improvement in computers or technology.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B are not persuasive. To start, whether the claim limitations constitute well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to particular of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 21, 23-25, 27-31, 33-35, and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21 and 23-25, 27-30, and 41 recite a method (i.e., process), claims 31, 33-35, and 37-39 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., machine or article of manufacture), and claim 40 recites a system (i.e., machine). Therefore, claims 21, 23-25, 27-31, 33-35, and 37-41 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 21, 31, and 40 recite the limitations of accessing data indicative of a demand for transport requests; accessing data indicative of possible requests for transport services, each of the possible requests for transport services respectively comprising an origin, a destination, and a service request time; computing, based on the data indicative of possible requests for transport services, future demand for future transport services; accessing data indicative of a route for each of [a plurality of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft], each route specifying a destination for [the VTOL aircraft] and one or more way points while traveling to the destination; accessing data indicative of battery levels of each of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft]; computing, using [a model], an updated route for at least one of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft] based on the demand of transport requests, the future demand for future transport services, the routes of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft], and the battery levels of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft], wherein the updated route for the at least one of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft] reduces battery power usage of the at least one of the plurality of [VTOL aircraft] relative to a previous route; and sending routing instructions to the at least one of the [VTOL aircraft of the plurality of VTOL aircraft], the routing instructions directing movement of the at least one of [the VTOL aircraft] along at least a portion the updated route, the routing instructions further directing the at least one [VTOL aircraft] to charge for a specified amount of time at a destination for the updated route. The claim limitations are directed to optimizing the use of an aircraft fleet to transport users, and correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, commercial interactions, etc.), as evidenced by limitations disclosing analyzing data indicative of possible requests for transport services for passengers, computing demand for transport services, and sending routing instructions to the aircraft. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (evaluation, observation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations directed to the observation and evaluation of transport service requests and computing an updated route based on future demand for transport services and the observed or evaluated battery levels of the aircrafts. Routing instructions for the transport vehicle are generated or computed based on the observed and evaluated data (judgment/opinion) The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the elements or features in brackets above are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a plurality of VTOL aircraft, a model, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising executable computer program code (claims 31 and 40), one or more processors (claim 40). The additional elements of a model, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising executable computer program code, and one or more processors, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer. The plurality of VTOL aircraft and the model also amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to particular of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 39 recites the limitation that the at least one VTOL aircraft is a human-pilot VTOL aircraft or an autonomous VTOL aircraft. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the VTOL aircraft being a human-pilot VTOL aircraft or an autonomous VTOL aircraft. The additional element amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 23-25, 27-30, 33-35, 37, 38, and 41 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 23-25, 27-30, 33-35, 37, 38, and 41 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23-25, 27-31, 33-35, and 37-41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference(s) found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention are Ma (2017/0197710) and Balva (2021/0140777). Ma discloses an automated vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle for transporting passengers including accessing data related to the VTOL aircraft route, battery level, etc. Ma does not explicitly disclose limitations related to demand, however Balva discloses a transportation management system that discloses determining an anticipated future demand. Neither claim, individually nor in combination, discloses the amended limitations of computing, using a model, an updated route for at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft based on the demand of transport requests, the future demand for future transport services, the routes of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, and the battery levels of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, wherein the updated route for the at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft reduces battery power usage of the at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft relative to a previous route; and sending routing instructions to the at least one of the VTOL aircraft of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, the routing instructions directing movement of the at least one of the VTOL aircraft along at least a portion the updated route, the routing instructions further directing the at least one VTOL aircraft to charge for a specified amount of time at a destination for the updated route. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference(s) found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention is the article “Towards A Transportation Network Model For Air Taxi Dispatch Planning” (Lee, 2005). The article described potential strategies for changing the allocations of aircraft across the network to gain insight into the effects and usefulness of different types of provisioning. The article explores carious dispatch cases based on expected demand. Neither claim, individually nor in combination, discloses the amended limitations of computing, using a model, an updated route for at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft based on the demand of transport requests, the future demand for future transport services, the routes of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, and the battery levels of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, wherein the updated route for the at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft reduces battery power usage of the at least one of the plurality of VTOL aircraft relative to a previous route; and sending routing instructions to the at least one of the VTOL aircraft of the plurality of VTOL aircraft, the routing instructions directing movement of the at least one of the VTOL aircraft along at least a portion the updated route, the routing instructions further directing the at least one VTOL aircraft to charge for a specified amount of time at a destination for the updated route. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628