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 a Final Action in response to the communications filed on 4/03/2026.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 18.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 24 are pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Rejections
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101;
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues that the Examiner's characterization of the claims reciting mental processes and mathematical expressions is incorrect.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 1 recites the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, as the claim interpretation recites mathematical calculations, where the claim recites the steps of creating, a two-dimensional (2D)) scatter plot… plurality of data points; "determining two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot based on a volume of the plurality of data points," "identifying an inflection point on the 2D scatter plot as a point of intersection of the two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot," "determining the cost-optimal minimum turn time using the inflection point," and observing a color-coded background indicative of a relative difference between the cost-optimal minimum turn time and an expected value. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. Accordingly, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts. Claim 1 also recites mental processes, as the claim is observing historical data; evaluating a two-dimensional (2D) scatter plot; evaluating two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot; observing an inflection point on the 2D scatter plot; evaluating the cost-optimal minimum turn time; and evaluating a scheduling action using the cost-optimal minimum turn time. Thus claim 1 recites mental processes.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a scheduling system, a device, subject vehicle, a first station, second station, heatmap chart, first airport, second airport, a database, communicatively coupled to the processor, and a processor; however these additional elements are merely generic computer components, and uses the computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. Thus the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s claim 1 is merely calculating a cost optimal minimum turn time based on historical data; plots a 2D scatter plot of the historical data and identifies an inflection point; the claim determines two straight lines, iterating the lines with a slope parameter in the standard equation for a line, (y=mx + b). The heatmap chart provides a color-coded background indicating a difference between the cost-optimal minimum turn time and an expected minimum turn time of the subject vehicle at the station. This is not an improvement in the functioning of a computer. However, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), recites an improvement to technology, where Enfish provides a self-referential database table and is contrasting to the standard relational database table; as the first the self-referential model can store all entity types in a single table, and second the self-referential model can define the table’s columns by rows in that same table, and thus providing an improvement. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) recites claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values. Applicant’s Specification recites in ¶ 0035, “The present strategy seeks to find the optimal point 18 and thereafter use its corresponding value to improve upon the functionality existing scheduling systems, with a variety of beneficial uses and hardware/process improvements”; and “The method 50 of FIG. 3 can also be used to improve scheduling of crew pairing and aircraft routing, validate flight re-timing process results, and simplify stochastic modeling of aircraft ground operation processes in Monte-Carlo simulations.” There is no support for an improvement to technology nor a technological field in Applicant’s Specification nor does claims recite an improvement; and the claims are merely resolving a business problem of calculating the actual turn times of aircraft of operations. Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1, and claims 11 and 18 recite the same abstract idea. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 11, and 18. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and all pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Response to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues amended independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are patentable over the recited art.
Examiner respectfully agrees. Applicant’s Arguments are persuasive. Examiner’s cited art fails to teach identifying an inflection point represented as the intersection of two lines. Accordingly, Examiner has removed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 recites:
receiving historical data the historical data including a set of actual past turn times and available turn times;
creating, a two-dimensional (2D) scatter plot of the historical data, wherein the 2D scatter plot is comprised of a plurality of data points;
determining two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot based on a volume of the plurality of data points;
identifying an inflection point on the 2D scatter plot as a point of intersection of the two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot;
determining the cost-optimal minimum turn time using the inflection point;
and executing a scheduling action using the cost-optimal minimum turn time, including rescheduling a departure based on the cost-optimal minimum turn time, wherein executing the scheduling action comprises: displaying the cost-optimal minimum turn time determined from the inflection point on a display screen,
a set period of time, includes a color-coded background indicative of a relative difference between the cost-optimal minimum turn time and an expected value, wherein a first color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value above a high threshold associated with the cost-optimal minimum turn time, wherein a second color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value below a low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time, and wherein a third color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value between the high threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time and the low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites mental processes, related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. For example, observing historical data; evaluating a two-dimensional (2D) scatter plot; evaluating two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot; observing an inflection point on the 2D scatter plot; evaluating the cost-optimal minimum turn time; and evaluating a scheduling action using the cost-optimal minimum turn time… causing the cost-optimal minimum time to be provided to a display screen wherein a set period of time includes a color-coded background indicative of a relative difference between the cost-optimal minimum turn time and an expected value wherein a first color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value above a high threshold associated with the cost-optimal minimum turn time, wherein a second color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value below a low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time, and wherein a third color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value between the high threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time and the low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time, all involve evaluation and observation of data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes.
The limitations of claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites mathematical concepts. For example, the steps of creating, a two-dimensional (2D)) scatter plot… plurality of data points; "determining two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot based on a volume of the plurality of data points," "identifying an inflection point on the 2D scatter plot as a point of intersection of the two straight lines on the 2D scatter plot," "determining the cost-optimal minimum turn time using the inflection point," and observing a color-coded background indicative of a relative difference between the cost-optimal minimum turn time and an expected value wherein a first color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value above a high threshold associated with the cost-optimal minimum turn time, wherein a second color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value below a low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time, and wherein a third color in the color-coded background indicates the expected value between the high threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time and the low threshold associated with cost-optimal minimum turn time can all be performed with the human mind, pen a paper and are mathematical relationships based on coloring a background and plotting data points to reflect an optimal turn time and an inflection point. Further, the step of executing a scheduling action using the cost-optimal minimum turn time, including rescheduling a departure based on the cost-optimal minimum turn time, wherein executing the scheduling action comprises: displaying the cost-optimal minimum turn time associated with the subject vehicle on a heatmap chart via a display screen, and causing the cost-optimal minimum turn time associated with the subject vehicle on the heatmap chart to be provided to a display screen are all mathematical relationships, as the heatmap chart provides a value for different areas and indicates the value by color, such as green, yellow, and red. Accordingly, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claim 2 is directed towards evaluating a Hough transform, claim 3 is directed towards evaluating the two straight lines on a 2D scatter plot using an iterative procedure, claim 4 is directed towards a predetermined static slope parameter; claim 6 is directed towards observing the subject vehicle is an aircraft, and the first station is an airport or a terminal of the airport; claim 7 is directed towards modeling flight delay propagation; claim 8 is directed towards evaluating a Gumbel approximation; claim 9 is directed towards evaluating the scheduling action is observing the cost-optimal minimum turn time to evaluate a future impact on a predicted reliability level of the expected value; claim 12 is directed towards evaluating a Hough transform; claim 13 is directed towards evaluating two straight lines using an iterative procedure, including applying a predetermined static slope parameter and a dynamic intercept parameter; claim 14 is directed towards observing a predetermined static slope parameter; claim 16 is directed towards observing the subject vehicle is an aircraft, and the first station is an airport or a terminal; claim 17 is directed towards observing a scheduling action includes modeling propagation of a flight delay at the airport through a plurality of airports; claim 20 is directed towards a scheduling action; claim 21 is observing the cost-optimal minimum turn time includes modeling flight delay propagation through a plurality of airports; and claims 22, 23, and 24, are directed towards observing a location where travel begins and is a different location where travel ends. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 18 recite the additional elements of a scheduling system, a device, subject vehicle, processing the historical data to determine the inflection point represented as a point of intersection, a first station, second station, heatmap chart, first airport, second airport, a database, communicatively coupled to the processor, and a processor, but the additional elements are merely generic computer components, and uses a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a processor) per Applicant’s Specification as shown below:
“[0034] Referring briefly to FIG. lA, such a scheduling system 11 may include a flight historical database (DB) 13,memory (M) 15, and one or more processors (P) 17,6 e.g., application-specific integrated circuits, microprocessors, or processing cores. Although omitted from the Figures for illustrative simplicity, the scheduling system 11 may include other hardware and software elements, such as but not limited to input/output (I/O) devices, graphics boards, filters, and the like. Memory 15 for its part may include application suitable amounts of random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory or other solid-state memory, etc. Together, these and other possible hardware components execute instructions embodying a method 50, an example of which is depicted in Fig. 3 and described below. To that end, the database 13 includes recorded flight historical data 13D, including a set of actual turn times of the aircraft 10 or other subject vehicle at the station 12. The flight historical database 13 and/or an external client database 130 also includes available turn times 130D of the aircraft 10 at the station 12, e.g., as predetermined turn times for a given aircraft 10, station 12, etc. The instructions for determining a cost-optimal minimum turn time of the aircraft 10 at the station 12 are recorded in memory 15. Execution of the instructions by the processor 17 causes the processor 17 to execute the present method 50, with the processor 17 ultimately outputting publication data 60 for consumption by a variety of end users, with the publication data 60 in some embodiments being displayable via a display screen 110 of the system 11 as described below with particular reference to Figs. 10-12.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a scheduling system, a device, subject vehicle, a first station, second station, heatmap chart, first airport, second airport, database, and a processor are considered a generic computer components, and the claims amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g., a processor). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 – 4, 6 – 9, 12 – 14, 16 – 17, and 20 – 24, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 – 24, are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Subramaniyan, Muthusankar (U.S. Patent No. 11,074,819 B2) discloses a method and system for providing cost data via an operating cost app for a flight associated with a flight plan, by a computing device.
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 Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. Examiner Alston can be reached via Fax at 571-483-7338.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on 571-272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
06/12/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights