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 reply to the application 17/577,954 filed on 1/18/2022. Claims 1, 8, and 14 were amended in the reply filed 9/19/2024. Claims 1, 8-17, and 20 were amended in the reply filed 1/15/2025. Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 were amended in the reply filed 5/27/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 14 were amended in the reply filed 8/5/2025. Claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 were amended in the reply filed 12/19/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 12 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the independent claims are not directed to one of the judicial exceptions. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claim limitation “controlling at least one aircraft to follow a flight plan associated with the airline recovery scheduling solution” is not a mental process. However, Examiner considers this limitation part of the abstract idea. Specifically, Examiner has determined that this amended claim limitation merely represents sending instructions akin to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions). This amended limitation in light of the specification does not include controlling the mechanisms of the aircraft themselves, and the limitation is therefore part of the abstract idea and not an additional element.
Applicant further argues that the cited abstract idea below is not a mental process. However, the abstract idea has not been categorized as a mental process. The abstract ideas present in the claims have instead been categorized under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g. commercial interactions (i.e., business relations), managing personal behavior (i.e., following rules or instructions)), “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships), and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions).
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in the rejection below, the claims are directed to an abstract idea merely “applied” to a generic computer environment. The amendments merely further narrow the abstract idea and the previously recited additional elements fall within the categorization of a ‘generic computer environment.’ As such, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1, 8, and 14 recite a method, a hardware module, and a system for performing the method of receiving, by a processing device, an airline recovery scheduling solution request to modify an original airline schedule operations solution based on one or more disruptive events associated with one or more airline flights, wherein the one or more disruptive events causes the airline scheduling disruption; computing, by the processing device, a flight recovery solution based on rescheduling one or more flights with a minimum number of breaks in one or more original crew-pairings comprising a sequence of connectable flights with a same fleet that starts from and ends with a same crew base or origin, and a minimum number of breaks in one or more original passenger connections for connecting flights in order to reschedule one or more disrupted flights; generating, by the processing device, a crew recovery solution using the flight recovery solution by assigning one or more flight crews to one or more rescheduled disrupted flights; iteratively performing the steps of: identifying one or more uncovered flights in the crew recovery solution; and determining a modified flight recovery solution and a modified crew recovery solution to reduce a number of uncovered flights in the crew recovery solution; and after performing a final iteration: generating, by the processing device, a passenger recovery solution based on the modified crew recovery solution and re-assigning one or more disrupted passengers to the one or more rescheduled disrupted flights; and configuring, by the processing device, the airline recovery scheduling solution using the modified flight recovery solution, the modified crew recovery solution, and the passenger recovery solution in order to transmit the airline recovery scheduling solution to an airline operations control center with the one or more disrupted flights, transmitting, by the processing device, the airline recovery scheduling solution to one or more entities, the one or more entities including at least one of the airline operations control center, a display, an airport, an aircraft, or an electronic system; updating, by the processing device, the one or more entities from the original airline schedule operations solution to the airline recovery scheduling solution; and causing the one or more entities to perform: updating at least one of a passenger schedule, a crew schedule, and a flight schedule based on the airline recovery scheduling solution, updating of the flight schedule including one or more of delaying, cancelling, swapping, and ferrying the one or more airline flights; displaying at least one of the passenger schedule, the crew schedule, and the flight schedule based on the airline recovery scheduling solution to an electronic output device; and controlling at least one aircraft to follow a flight plan associated with the airline recovery scheduling solution. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 14 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving … an airline recovery scheduling solution request to modify an original airline schedule operations solution based on one or more disruptive events associated with one or more airline flights, wherein the one or more disruptive events causes the airline scheduling disruption; computing … a flight recovery solution based on rescheduling one or more flights with a minimum number of breaks in one or more original crew-pairings comprising a sequence of connectable flights with a same fleet that starts from and ends with a same crew base or origin, and a minimum number of breaks in one or more original passenger connections for connecting flights in order to reschedule one or more disrupted flights using a mixed integer linear program ... including an objective function and one or more constraints; generating … a crew recovery solution using the flight recovery solution by assigning one or more flight crews to one or more rescheduled disrupted flights; iteratively performing the steps of: identifying one or more uncovered flights in the crew recovery solution; and determining a modified flight recovery solution and a modified crew recovery solution to reduce a number of uncovered flights in the crew recovery solution; and after performing a final iteration: generating … a passenger recovery solution based on the modified crew recovery solution and re-assigning one or more disrupted passengers to the one or more rescheduled disrupted flights; and configuring … the airline recovery scheduling solution using the modified flight recovery solution, the modified crew recovery solution, and the passenger recovery solution in order to transmit the airline recovery scheduling solution to an airline operations control center with the one or more disrupted flights, transmitting ... the airline recovery scheduling solution to one or more entities, the one or more entities including at least one of the airline operations control center ... an airport, an aircraft ... updating ... the one or more entities from the original airline schedule operations solution to the airline recovery scheduling solution; and causing the one or more entities to perform at least one or more of: updating at least one of a passenger schedule, a crew schedule, and a flight schedule based on the airline recovery scheduling solution, updating of the flight schedule including one or more of delaying, cancelling, swapping, and ferrying the one or more airline flights; displaying at least one of the passenger schedule, the crew schedule, and the flight schedule based on the airline recovery scheduling solution ... and controlling at least one aircraft to follow a flight plan associated with the airline recovery scheduling solution, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers the concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g. commercial interactions (i.e., business relations), managing personal behavior (i.e., following rules or instructions)) and “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g. commercial interactions (i.e., business relations), managing personal behavior (i.e., following rules or instructions)) and “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships). Moreover, the limitations rescheduling one or more flights with a minimum number of breaks in one or more original crew-pairings and a minimum number of breaks in one or more original passenger connections for connecting flights in order to reschedule one or more disrupted flights using a mixed integer linear program ... including an objective function and one or more constraints fit into the category of Mathematical Concepts because they recite relationships/calculations of numerical data. Furthermore, after consideration of the amended claim limitation controlling at least one aircraft to follow a flight plan associated with the airline recovery scheduling solution in light of the specification, Examiner has determined that this amended claim limitation merely represents sending instructions akin to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions). This amended limitation in light of the specification does not include controlling the mechanisms of the aircraft themselves, and the limitation is therefore part of the abstract idea and not an additional element. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.-
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Such claimed components of the generic computer environment include: a computing device (claim 8), a processing device (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 8 and 14), an airline scheduling system (claim 8), a ... solver (claims 1, 8, and 14), an airlines operation system (claim 14), a display (claims 1, 8, and 14), an electronic system (claims 1, 8, and 14), and an electronic output device (claims 1, 8, and 14). The claimed devices are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the aforementioned additional elements of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements a computing device (described on Spec. pg. 9), a processing device (described on Spec. pg. 10), one or more processors (described on Spec. pg. 10), an airline scheduling system (described on Spec. pg. 10), a ... solver (described on Spec. pg. 24), an airlines operation system (described on Spec. pg. 5), a display (described on Spec. pg. 11), an electronic system (described on Spec. pg. 10), and an electronic output device (described on Spec. pg. 10), as shown, are described in the specification at a high level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in the independent claims. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As mentioned above, claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in the independent claims. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the timing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the claims as being obvious over Arguello (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0158154), Petersen (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0335567) Andersson (NPL attached), and other cited references. Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 14, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach claims 1, 8, and 14 as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 14 and all dependent claims are considered novel over the prior art.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628