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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 28, 2025 cancelled claims 32-33 and 49-50. Claims 1-2, 9, 15-18, 26-27, and 35-36 and were amended and new claims 60-68 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 1,18, and 35 recite “wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user’s travel destination”; “the user profile including itinerary information based in part on a user’s final travel destination” and “the user profile including itinerary information with a user’s final travel destination”, respectively. The claimed “a user’s travel destination” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claims “a user”. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-17, 19-22, 25-31, 34, 36-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are objected to because they fail to correct the deficiency of the claims from which they depend and inherit the deficiency of the claims from which the depend. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitations as if they recited “the user’s travel destination” or “the user’s final travel destination”, as appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 1, 18, and 35 recite “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”; “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”; and “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”, respectively. The claimed “destination information” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claims “user’s…travel destination” and/or, in the case of claim 1 the previously claimed “a final destination”. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-17, 19-22, 25-31, 34, 36-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are objected to because they fail to correct the deficiency of the claims from which they depend and inherit the deficiency from the claims from which the depend. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitations as if they recited “displaying the destination through…”, as appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 25, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7, 25, and 42 recite “wherein aircraft information” and depend from independent claims 1, 18, and 35, respectively. The claimed “aircraft information” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “aircraft information” in claims 1, 18, and 35. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitation as if it recited “the aircraft information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 10, 27, 37, 44, 52, 54, 56-58 and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, 10, 27, 37, 44, 52, 54, 56-58 and 60 recite “user profile information. The claimed “user profile information” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “user profile information” in the independent claim from which they depend. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitation as if it recited “the user profile information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 62, 63, and 68 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 62, 63, and 68 recite “wherein a same user profile may be used for all users of the client device” and depend from independent claims 18, 35, and 35, respectively. The claimed “a same user profile” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a user profile” in claims 18 and 35. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitation as if it recited “where the user profile is a same user profile for all users of the client device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 64 and 65 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 64 and 65 recite “a same client device” and depend from independent claims 18 and 35, respectively. The claimed “a same client device” lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “a client device” in claims 18 and 35. For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitation as if it recited “the client device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 18, and 35 recite “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”; “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”; and “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”, respectively. Each of these limitations either requires a processor executing on a first computer (i.e., the computer/server) executing software (the application) stored on a second computer (i.e., the client device), such that the second computer performs the act of executing the application and displaying data (i.e., claims 18 and 35), or is broad enough to encompass said first computer executing said software stored on said second computer (i.e., claim 1, especially when considered in light of claims 18 and 35).
The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s disclosure for a first computer with a processor executing instruction on a second computer to perform functions on the second computer. Thus, it is clear that independent claims 1, 18, and 35 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-17, 19-22, 25-31, 34, 36-39, 42-48, and 52-68 fail to correct the deficiency of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the limitations as if they recited “transmitting the destination information through a destination channel for display via an application executing on the client device”; “transmitting the destination information through a destination channel for display via an application executing on the client device”; and “transmitting the destination information through a destination channel for display via an application executing on the client device”, respectively.
Claims 62, 63, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claims 62, 63, and 68 recite “wherein a same user profile may be used for all users of the client device”, and depend from independent claims 18, 35, and 35, respectively. The examiner cannot find support for this limitation in the applicant’s specification.
The claimed “a client device” of independent claims 18 and 35 is broad enough to encompass any client device irrespective of whether it is a client device carried onboard the aircraft or a client device installed on the aircraft. According to the applicant’s specification the claimed client device 150 may be either a personal electronic device carried by a user, based on the embodiment disclosed in paragraphs 22-26 of the applicant’s specification, or client device 150 may be a seatback system installed on a seat in front of a user sitting in the aircraft, based on the embodiment disclosed in paragraph 42 of the applicant’s specification. First, while the applicant’s disclosure supports “a user profile linked with a client device” wherein the user profile is a same user profile for all users of the client device, when the client device is carried onboard the airplane by the user in at least paragraphs 22-26 and 50, the user profile claimed is not linked or associated with the client device itself, but instead is associated with the user. Thus, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not have support for a same user profile being used for all users of the client device when the client device is installed on a seat in the aircraft. Second, the examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s specification for the user profile is a same user profile for all users of the client device, when the client device is installed on a seat in the aircraft. The closest support for such a limitation is found in paragraph 50 where client device 280 can have a same user profile that may be used for all users of the client device when the user profile is associated with the client device. However, this cannot be said to support client device 150 which is installed on a seat in the aircraft because it is referring to client device 280 and not client device 150. Additionally, it only support’s instances where the profile is associated with the client device and not instances where the client device is associated with a user. Thus, it is clear that the applicant’s specification does not have support for a same user profile being used for all users of the client device when the client device is installed on a seat in the aircraft. As such, claims 62, 63, and 68 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Furthermore, independent claims 18 and 35 require: “user profile information associated with a user of the client device”, which means the user profile information is associated with the singular user and not the client device of the user; “creating a user profile associated with the user of the client device based on the user profile information”, which means the user profile is associated with the singular user and not the client device; making “an association” “between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device”, which means the association is between the user profile and only the singular particular user of the client device; and “the user profile including itinerary information based in part on the user’s final travel destination or …”, which means that the user profile must include the final travel destination of the singular user. First, there is no support in the applicant’s specification for “a user profile” of “a user” created based on the user’s profile information, wherein “an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device”, which includes the user’s final travel destination, wherein the user profile can also be a same user profile used for all users of the client device. This lack of support is irrespective of whether the client device is carried onboard the aircraft by the user or installed in the seat back of the aircraft. Neither, paragraphs 22-26 nor paragraph 50 can be said to support an embodiment where “the association is between the user profile and the singular particular user of the client device” because a profile associated with the user is not disclosed as also being a same user profile used for all users of the client device. Second, at least in regards to a client device installed on a seat of the airplane, the applicant’s disclosure has no support for a first user’s final travel destination being included in a profile for a second user sitting in the seat at a later time for a different flight to a different destination than said first user. As such, claims 62, 63, and 68 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are directed to a method, a computer program product, and a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 18, and 35 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: the aircraft, client device, user, multiple users, aircraft computing systems, aircraft data bus, destination channel, application executing on the client device, graphical user interface on the client device, and data store onboard the aircraft have been included as part of the abstract idea itself because they are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention which is to a server and its functions and, as such, cannot be considered additional elements of the claimed invention itself.)
establishing a connection with a client device onboard an aircraft;
receiving a request for primary content from the client device, wherein the primary content is stored in a data store primary content onboard the aircraft;
receiving user profile information associated with a user of the client device;
creating a user profile associated with the user of the client device based on the received user profile information associated with the user and an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device, wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user's final travel destination and itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on a final travel destination of the user, and the user profile is created on the aircraft during flight;
selecting/identifying a targeted electronic advertisement based in part on the user's travel destination obtained from the user profile, wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is selected from stored electronic advertisements;
displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device; and
sending/transmitting the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a server comprising one or more processors and at least one memory/data store executing instructions (e.g., a general-purpose computer),
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
establishing, at a server onboard the aircraft, a connection with a client device onboard an aircraft (transmitting and/or receiving data);
receiving, at the server, a request for primary content from the client device, wherein the primary content is stored on a data store of primary content onboard the aircraft (receiving data);
receiving, at the server, user profile information associated with a user of the client device (receiving data);
receiving, at the server, aircraft information from an aircraft computing system over an aircraft data bus (receiving data);
displaying, by the server, destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device (transmitting data for display and/or displaying data); and
sending/transmitting, by the server, the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a server comprising one or more processors and at least one memory/data store executing instructions (e.g., a general-purpose computer) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 117-122 of the applicant’s specification which disclose that the server comprising one or more processors and at least one memory/data store executing instructions is merely a general-purpose computer; Poole (PGPUB 2015/0356662 which discloses that displaying information on a GUI is well-known in the art; the Intellectual Ventures v. Direct TV decision which discloses that interfaces, networks, and databases are generic computer components and that recitations of such generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible; the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision which discloses that a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element; and the Electric Power Group v. Alstrom decision which discloses that limiting the claims to a particular technological environment (e.g., an airplane and/or network associated with an airplane) is, without more, insufficient to transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter, as well as, as that merely limiting the source of type of information is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
establishing, at a server onboard the aircraft, a connection with a client device onboard an aircraft (transmitting and/or receiving data);
receiving, at the server, a request for primary content from the client device, wherein the primary content is stored on a data store of primary content onboard the aircraft (receiving data);
receiving, at the server, user profile information associated with a user of the client device (receiving data);
receiving, at the server, aircraft information from an aircraft computing system over an aircraft data bus (receiving data);
displaying, by the server, destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device (transmitting data for display and/or displaying data); and
sending/transmitting, by the server, the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-4, 7-17, 19-22, 25-31, 34, 36-39, 42-48, and 52-68 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding the additional step of transmitting the advertisement along with the primary content which is considered part of the abstract idea; receiving the primary content; and/or further limiting the primary content which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2, 19, and 36, the examiner notes that the data stored on the aircraft, the server off-board the aircraft, as well as, any data stored there are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention which is directed to a server receiving such data and, as such the data stored on the aircraft, the server off-board the aircraft, as well as, the data stored thereon are considered part of the abstract idea itself because they cannot be considered additional elements of the claimed invention itself); further limiting the user profile information; when it is received, and the selecting of the advertisement which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3, 20-21, 52, 54, and 62-68; the examiner notes that the data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator and off-board location are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea); further limiting the creation of the user profile which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4, 53, and 55); further limiting the aircraft information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7, 25 and 42); further limiting itinerary information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 8, 22, and 43); adding an additional step of obtaining the targeted electronic information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 9, the examiner notes that the server and satellite connection are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, are considered part of the abstract idea); adding the additional steps of obtaining user profile information from devices outside the scope of the applicant’s invention, adding the user profile information to the user profile, and further limiting the selecting of the advertisement which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 10, 27, and 44); further limiting the user profile, the creating of the user profile, the identifying of the advertisement, and/or adding an additional step of associating the user profile which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 11-12, 28-29, 37-39, 45-46, 52, 56-58, 60, and 62-68); further limiting the advertisement which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 13, 15, 30, 47, and 59); further limiting the connection which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 14, 31, and 48, the examiner notes that the wireless access point is outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, is part of the abstract idea); adding an additional step of displaying a public announcement with the advertisement which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 16); further limiting the destination information which is considered part of the abstract (Claim 17); adding an additional step of obtaining the targeted electronic information from devices outside the scope of the applicants invention which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 26 and 61); further limiting the client device and the connection which are considered part of the abstract idea because they are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, cannot be considered additional elements (Claim 34); further limiting the creation of the user profile which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 52, 56-58, and 60), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-4, 7-22, 25-31, 34-39, 42-48, and 52-68 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13-14,16-22, 25-28, 30-31, 34-39, 42-45, 47-48, 53, 55-58, 61, and 64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (PGPUB 2020/0334703), in view of Keen (PGPUB 2011/0313826).
Claims 1-2, 18, and 35-36: Chang discloses a method for providing targeted electronic advertisements on an aircraft, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, and a system comprising:
a server onboard the aircraft comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device including a datastore to store a plurality of data and instructions (Paragraphs 17 and 26-31) that when executed:
establishing a connection with a client device onboard the aircraft (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 16 and 38: the airside server (e.g., server onboard the aircraft) and the plurality of display devices (e.g., client device onboard the aircraft) can be combined within an inflight entertainment (IFE) system within the airplane; the airside server can be coupled to the plurality of display devices via a network);
receiving a request for primary content from the client device, wherein the primary content is store on a data store of primary content onboard the aircraft or from the primary content stored on a server off-board the aircraft (Paragraph 37: a user can interact with the user interface to select, for example, desired media content (e.g., primary content) or offers in order to receive rewards; Paragraph 16: The IFE system can provide a source of entertainment to each passenger in the airplane, providing a variety of media content (TV, movies, music, books, etc.) and services (Internet connectivity, social media, email, etc.) to the viewing/operating passenger; the airside server and the plurality of display devices can be combined within an inflight entertainment (IFE) system within the airplane),
receiving user profile information associated with a user of the client device; creating a user profile associated with the user of the client device based on the received user profile information associated with the user and an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device (Paragraph 32: the user profiles can be created by the user via the display device in the airplane, or via other interactive means, such as a website on a computer or wireless electronic device (e.g., a tablet, smartphone, etc.); the profiles can also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program (e.g., user profile information associate with a user of the client device); the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s) and various preferences of the user(s); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior, and travel origins/destinations (e.g., user profile information including a user's travel destination); these data can be manually input by the user; these data can be further recorded or otherwise saved by the processor as events occur (e.g., before flight and/or in-flight) and processed in a ML or AI context; Paragraphs 4, 31 and 51-54: storing a distributed rewards ledger in memory, including the reward, completion criteria, and identification of the user; the presenting can be further based on the user profile; Paragraph 45: If the user already has an appropriate profile, he or she may log into the IFE system using existing credentials);
wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user's final travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on the final travel destination of the user (Paragraph 31: the memory can further include one or more databases for storing one or more user profiles, a plurality of offers (e.g., from the third-party server), and data associated with various characteristics related to individual users (e.g., based on the profiles), route of flight, time of flight (e.g., itinerary information), and/or destination (e.g., user's final travel destination/location); Paragraphs 23 and 38: data communicated to the system includes aircraft information received from an aircraft computing system over a communications bus, wherein the aircraft information includes specific geographic location during the flight, a point in time during a given flight), and
the user profile is created on the aircraft during flight (Paragraph 32: the user profiles can be created by the user via the display device in the airplane …user in-flight entertainment usage behavior (e.g., during flight));
selecting, at the server, a targeted electronic advertisement based in part on the user's travel destination obtained from-the user profile (Paragraph 42: the carrier operator can use flight information to advertise specific restaurant or hotel rewards for a given flight destination and offer associated rewards based on watching an advertisement provided by the IFE system at a certain time during flight; Paragraph 23: the airside server can transmit a request to the groundside server to provide offers based on various conditions within the airplane; the airside server can request specific offers to present to a specific individual or operator at one of the plurality of the display devices; the offers presented can be based on certain demographic information known about a passenger, a profile (FIG. 2) of the user, duration of flight, specific geographic location during the flight, a point in time during a given flight, completion of tasks or other criteria, takeoff and landing locations (e.g., user's travel destination), etc.; See also Paragraph 33),
wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is selected from a data store of electronic advertisements (Paragraph 31: the memory (e.g., data store) can further include one or more databases for storing one or more user profiles, a plurality of offers ( e.g., from the third party server), and data associated with various characteristics related to individual users (based on the profiles), route of flight, time of flight, and/or destination/location; the memory can store and use data related to passengers or users of the IFE system, in addition to data and information related to offers provided by the third party server and the related rewards).
displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device; and sending the targeted electronic advertisement, along with the primary content, to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device.
Change discloses presenting offers in at least paragraphs 16, 26, and 31, but does not specifically disclose displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device; and sending the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device.
However, Keen teaches that it is known to displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device and sending the targeted electronic advertisement, along with the primary content, to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device (Keen - Fig. 6 and Paragraphs 65 and 88-91: the common data includes interactive maps; displaying, on the display or GUII of the client device, the destination information, such as the arriving gate number, connecting gate numbers, baggage claim information, hotels, rental car agencies, restaurants, etc., through the destination channel "Orlando Area", wherein targeted electronic advertisement such as coupons and other available discounts are also made available for display to the passengers being shown, wherein the client device may be a personal mobile smart phone; Paragraph 85: the stored web pages may be directed to a particular topic or theme, such as services and products; the services may also be directed to advertisements; the common data related to the services and products; Paragraph 87: the common data related to the services or products may be pushed to or pull by the PED; Paragraph 139: when portal pages are viewed, advertisements will also be displayed; while looking at different web pages, the passengers will see advertisements interspersed or sharing the same screen; Paragraph 156: the application software downloaded onto the client device by the passenger; Paragraphs 72 and 84: the data memory cache (e.g., data sore onboard the aircraft) is for caching predetermined web pages to be browsed; instead of the aircraft receiving the web pages while in-flight, the web pages (e.g., primary contents) are received while the aircraft is on the ground such as via a wireless airport data link).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify what information is displayed of Chang by adding displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device; and sending the targeted electronic advertisement, along with the primary content, to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device, as taught by Keen, since Chang and Keen are analogous art and in order to make it easier to operate the aircraft system through the passenger’s phone and to enjoy viewing content on a passenger’s phone. Another advantage is that the passenger can use its own device while the passenger is on-board the aircraft to select desired advertisements and conveniently initiate purchase of different products and services using his/her personal device (Keen - Paragraphs 3-4, and 14).
Claims 4, 53, and 55: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein the user profile is created or updated based on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard the aircraft or onboard multiple aircraft which are included in a fleet of aircraft (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles can be created based by the user in the airplane (e.g., previous electronic activity on the aircraft), or via other interactive means, such as a website on a computer or wireless electronic device (e.g., a tablet, smartphone, etc.); the profiles can be created based on the purchase of an airline flight (or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider) and/or a frequent flier program (or similar rewards program); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including purchases made, consumed content, travel habits travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior (e.g., previous electronic activities), among other things).
Claims 7, 25, and 42: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein aircraft information is provided that includes at least one of: an aircraft origin, an aircraft destination, an estimated arrival time, an arrival gate, a current latitude and longitude of the aircraft, or an aircraft speed (Chang – Paragraph 42: flight details can include, for example, takeoff and landing destination, takeoff and landing times, route of flights, air carrier or airline, among other details).
Claims 8, 22, and 43: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein the itinerary information for the user of the client device includes at least one of: a user travel origin, user dates of travel, a user ticket purchase class, a user seat location, a time of travel, a day of the week of travel, a total duration of a trip, a user ticket price, or a time between a flight booking time and an actual flight time (Chang – Paragraph 32: the user profiles can be created by the user via the display device in the airplane, or via other interactive means, such as a website on a computer or wireless electronic device (e.g., a tablet, smartphone, etc.); the profiles can also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program; the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s) and various preferences of the user(s); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior, among other things).
Claims 9, 26, and 61: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, further comprising obtaining the targeted electronic advertisements from a content server, via a satellite connection and a ground station (Chang – Paragraph 21: the groundside server can communicate with the airside server via various radiofrequency (RF) communication systems, including satellite communications or direct, point-to-point RF signals; the groundside server can further transmit the rewards loadable information (e.g., advertisements) to the airside server; the airside server can then distribute or otherwise present the rewards via the display devices, as appropriate; the groundside server can also receive from the airside server a rewards log, including information about rewards redeemed, rewards ignored, task completion statistics, the type of rewards offered, the number of times a reward has displayed, among other information).
Claims 10 and 44: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, and the system of claim 35, further comprising:
obtaining user profile information, in part, from a data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles 206 also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider) and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program (e.g. data received from data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator);
adding the user profile information to the user profile stored in a data store of user profiles on the server onboard the aircraft( Chang - Paragraph 25: information about individual users can be stored to user profiles (FIG. 2) and can then be users to predict what offers will be accepted during specific periods of flight; this can include travel types ( e.g., business or leisure), ticket class ( e.g., first class, business, economy); the user profile can further include or be tied to frequent flyer status to determine types of rewards and offers (e.g., selecting the targeted electronic advertisement) provided to a given user/passenger; Paragraph 26: the device, in which memory is located and which stores user profiles, can be implemented as the "airside server" so the user profiles are stored in a data store of the server onboard the aircraft.); and
selecting the targeted electronic advertisement based in part on the user profile information (Chang - Paragraph 25: information about individual users can be stored to user profiles (FIG. 2) and can then be users to predict what offers will be accepted during specific periods of flight; this can include travel types (e.g., business or leisure), ticket class ( e.g., first class, business, economy); the user profile can further include or be tied to frequent flyer status to determine types of rewards and offers (e.g., selecting the targeted electronic advertisement) provided to a given user/passenger; Paragraph 26: the device, in which memory is located and which stores user profiles, can be implemented as the "airside server" so the user profiles are stored in a data store of the server onboard the aircraft.).
Claims 11, 28, and 45, Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, further comprising creating the user profile based in part on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard the aircraft (Chang – Paragraph 44: the processor can detect user activity or user interaction (e.g., a passenger interaction) with the display device ( e.g., via the user interface); the IFE system can detect a passenger using an IFE system function (e.g., user activity, such as watching a movie, playing a game, taking a survey, etc.(e.g. previous electronic activities) on the display device (e.g., the seatback monitor or PED); Paragraph 45: the processor can prompt, via the display device, the user to create a user profile (e.g., the user profile)).
Claims 13, 30, and 47: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is for at least one of: a product, a service, an offer or a promotion (Chang – Paragraph 42: the carrier operator can use flight information to advertise specific restaurant or hotel rewards for a given flight destination and offer associated rewards based on watching an advertisement provided by the IFE system at a certain time during flight.").
Claims 14, 31, and 48: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein the connection between the server and the client device is a wireless connection established via a wireless access point onboard the aircraft (Chang – Paragraph 14: the display device can also be a portable or wireless electronic device or personal electronic device (PED), such as a computer, smartphone, tablet, etc., operable to communicate with the airside server; such communications can be available via a wireless access point (WAP) in communication with the airside server).
Claim 16: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1 where a public announcement is displayed with the targeted electronic advertisement. (Keen - Fig.5-6 and 88-91: the common data includes interactive maps which are displayed, on the display or GUI of the client device, wherein the interactive maps include public announcements such as current airplane position, ETA, current airplane heading, current air speed, current grad speed, and current altitude, the arriving gate number, connecting gate numbers, and baggage claim information,; Paragraph 85: the stored web pages may be directed to a particular topic or theme, such as services and products; the services may also be directed to advertisements; the common data is related to the services and products; Paragraph 139: when portal pages are viewed, advertisements will also be displayed; while looking at different web pages, the passengers will see advertisements interspersed or sharing the same screen)
Claim 17: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the destination information describes historical information, neighborhood information, transportation information, sightseeing information, activity information, hotel information, restaurant information or emergency contact information (Keen - Fig. 6 and Paragraphs 65 and 88-91: the destination information includes the arriving gate number, connecting gate numbers, baggage claim information, hotels, rental car agencies, restaurants, etc.; Paragraph 85: the stored web pages may be directed to a particular topic or theme, such as services and products; the services may also be directed to advertisements; the common data related to the services and products; Paragraph 87: the common data related to the services or products may be pushed to or pull by the PED; Paragraph 139: when portal pages are viewed, advertisements will also be displayed; while looking at different web pages, the passengers will see advertisements interspersed or sharing the same screen)
Claim 19: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the primary content is selected from a group consisting of: media content, shopping information, moving map information, or destination information (Chang – Paragraphs 16 and 43: the IFE system can provide a source of entertainment to each passenger in the airplane, providing a variety of media content (TV, movies, music, books, etc.)).
Claim 20, Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the user profile associated with the user further includes demographic information of the user, and selecting the targeted electronic advertisement is further based in part on the demographic information of the user (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s); Paragraph 33: the memory and profiles (which include demographic information based on paragraph 32) can be used in certain predictive analytics to determine what offers (e.g., targeted electronic advertisement) to present to a given user; see also Paragraph 23).
Claim 21: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein:
the user profile associated with the user further includes interest information of the user, wherein the interest information includes a behavioral attribute of the user (Chang – Paragraph 44: the user can input certain personal information and preferences that the IFE system can use to present rewards that are more likely to interest the user, or that the user is more likely to redeem; Paragraph 32: the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions (e.g., behavior attribute) with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made (e.g., behavior attribute), consumed content (e.g., behavior attribute), travel habits (e.g., behavior attribute), travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior (e.g., behavior attribute), among other things), and
the selecting the targeted electronic advertisement is further based in part on the interest information including the behavioral attribute (Chang – Paragraph 33: the memory and profiles, which include interest information including the behavioral attributes according to paragraph 32, can be used in certain predictive analytics to determine what offers (e.g., targeted electronic advertisement) to present to a given user.").
Claim 27: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, further comprising instructions when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the process including:
obtaining user profile information, in part, from the client device via the graphical user interface on the client device (Chang – Paragraph 32: the user profiles can be created by the user via the display device in the airplane),
wherein the graphical user interface prompts the user to provide user profile information (Chang – Paragraph 45: the processor can prompt, via the display device, the user to create a user profile (e.g., the user profile); the user can input certain personal information and preferences that the IFE system); and
updating the user profile based in part on the user profile information obtained from the client device (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s) and various preferences of the user(s); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior, among other things; WAP in communication with the airside server; Paragraph 16: the display device can have, for example, a processor, a memory, and a user interface that allows a user to interact with the IFE system to retrieve and consume media during flight as describe in relation to FIG. 2)).
Claim 34: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the client device is a seatback system on the aircraft, and the connection between the server and the seatback system is a wired or wireless connection (Chang – Paragraph 37: the user interface can also include interaction means for the display device implemented as, for example, a seatback monitor or a wireless mobile device (e.g., the display device) operated by a user/passenger; Paragraph 16: the airside server and the plurality of display devices (e.g., seatback system) can be combined within an inflight entertainment (IFE) system within the airplane; the airside server can be coupled to the plurality of display devices via a network; the network can have both wired network infrastructure and wireless networking capabilities).
Claim 37: Chang and Keen disclose the system of claim 35, wherein the plurality of data and instructions, when executed, cause the system to: create the user profile based, in part, on user profile information received from the client device and previous electronic activities of the user while onboard the aircraft (Chang – Paragraph 32: the user profiles can be created by the user via the display device in the airplane, or via other interactive means, such as a website on a computer or wireless electronic device (e.g., a tablet, smartphone, etc.); the profiles can also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program (these are all user profile information associate with a user of the client device); the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s) and various preferences of the user(s); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, travel origins/destinations (e.g., user's travel destination), user in-flight entertainment usage behavior, among other things; these data can be manually input by the user; these data can be further recorded or otherwise saved by the processor as events occur (e.g. in-flight) and processed in a ML or AI context; Paragraph 44: the processor can detect user activity or user interaction (e.g., a passenger interaction) with the display device ( e.g., via the user interface); the IFE system can detect a passenger using an IFE system function (e.g., user activity, such as watching a movie, playing a game, taking a survey, etc. (e.g., previous electronic activities) on the display device (e.g., the seatback monitor or PED); Paragraph 45: the processor can prompt, via the display device, the user to create a user profile (e.g., the user profile)).
Claim 38: Chang and Keen disclose the system of claim 35, wherein the user profile associated with the user further includes demographic information of the user, and identifying the targeted electronic advertisement is further based in part on the demographic information of the user (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s); Paragraph 33: the memory and profiles (which include demographic information according to paragraph 32, can be used in certain predictive analytics to determine what offers (e.g., targeted electronic advertisement) to present to a given user; see also Paragraph 23).
Claim 39: Chang and Keen disclose the system of claim 35, wherein the interest information includes a behavioral attribute of the user; and the targeted electronic advertisement is identified based in part on the interest information including the behavioral attribute (Chang – Paragraph 44: the user can input certain personal information and preferences that the IFE system can use to present rewards that are more likely to interest the user, or that the user is more likely to redeem; Paragraph 32: the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions (e.g., behavior attribute) with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made (e.g., behavior attribute), consumed content (e.g., behavior attribute), travel habits (e.g., behavior attribute), travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior (e.g., behavior attribute), among other things; Paragraph 33: the memory and profiles, which include interest information including the behavioral attribute according to paragraph 32, can be used in certain predictive analytics to determine what offers (e.g., targeted electronic advertisement) to present to a given user).
Claims 56, 57, and 58: Chang and Keen disclose the method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein a user profile creation subsystem creates the user profile from interactions with the user or from user profile information stored at an off-board location received prior to take-off of the aircraft (Chang – Paragraph 32: the profiles can also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider (e.g., interactions) and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program; the profiles can include demographic information about the user(s) and various preferences of the user(s); the profiles can further be updated to reflect interactions with the IFE system, including, for example, purchases made, consumed content, travel habits, travel origins/destinations, user in-flight entertainment usage behavior, among other things; see also Paragraph 31).
Claims 64 and 65: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 and the system of claim 35, wherein separate user profiles may exist for separate users of a same client device and each user may be associated with a unique user profile (Chang – Paragraph 45: If the user already has an appropriate profile, he or she may log into the IFE system using existing credentials; Paragraphs 4, 31 and 51-54: storing a distributed rewards ledger in memory, including the reward, completion criteria, and identification of the user; the presenting can be further based on the user profile).
Claims 66 and 67: Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 and the method of claim 35, wherein the user profile may be associated with multiple client devices. (Chang – Paragraphs 46-48: the system can may select and display information independent of user activity, such as determining that a group of passengers has qualified for a reward opportunity based on passenger demographics (e.g., group user profile), flight profile (e.g., group user profile), flight destination (e.g., group user profile), time remaining in the flight (e.g., group user profile), among other options)
Claims 3, 52, 54 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (PGPUB: 2020/0334703), in view of Keen (PGPUB: 2011/0313826), in further view of Lee Min Goo (KR 2005/0098991).
Claims 3, 52, 54, and 60: The method of claim 1, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18, and the system of claim 35, wherein the user profile is created on the aircraft using user profile information received from a data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator at an off-board location, which is received prior to take-off of the aircraft.
Chang and Keen disclose the user profile being created on the aircraft using user profile information received from a data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator at an off-board location (Chang – Paragraph 25: the user profile can further include or be tied to frequent flyer status to determine types of rewards and offers provided to a given user/passenger; Paragraph 32: the profiles can also be created based, for example, on other criteria such as the purchase of an airline flight or other interactions with the air carrier or related service provider and/or a frequent flier program or similar rewards program (e.g., received from data store of user information associated with an aircraft operator); and Paragraph 40: the groundside server can upload the rewards, offers associated with the rewards, and accompanying data to the airside server for distribution to by the airside server to the display devices.").
Chang and Keen do not explicitly disclose that the user profile information is received prior to take-off of the aircraft.
However, the analogous art of Lee Min Goo discloses that it is known to receive the user profile information prior to take-off of the aircraft on at least Page 6, Paragraph 7 (personalized multimedia content and passenger information produced in this way is stored in the multimedia DB in the cabin before takeoff).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify where the user profile information is received of Chang and Keen by adding which is received prior to take-off of the aircraft, as taught by Lee Min Goo, since Chang, Keen, and Lee Min Goo are analogous art, and in order to provide personalized media services that meet the individual preferences of the passengers and to induce the interest of each passenger (Lee Min Goo – Page.2, Paragraph. 2).
Claims 12, 29, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (PGPUB: 2020/0334703), in view of Keen (PGPUB: 2011/0313826), in further view of Lemond (WO2009/097044).
Claims 12, 29, and 46: The method of claim 11, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 28, and the system of claim 45, wherein the user profile is further based on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard multiple aircraft which are included in a fleet of aircraft.
Chang and Keen create a user profile based on previous electronic activities as cited above.
Chang and Keen do not specifically disclose the user profile is further based on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard multiple aircraft which are included in a fleet of aircraft.
However, the analogous art of Lemond discloses that it is known for the user profile to be further based on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard multiple aircraft which are included in a fleet of aircraft on at least page 13, lines 29-30 (a passenger database maintains a listing of the passenger attributes, typically maintained for the frequent flyer passengers for the various airlines (e.g., fleet of aircraft)) and page14, lines 3-6 (data indicative of the past activities of this passenger are listed, such as previous behavior (e.g., activities on flight), previous purchases, likely purchases as estimated by statistical prediction programs, movie preferences, game preferences, and audio preferences are stored).’
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user profile of Chang and Keen by adding wherein the user profile is further based on previous electronic activities of the user while onboard multiple aircraft which are included in a fleet of aircraft, as taught by Lemond, since Chang and Lemond are analogous art, and in order to estimate the passenger’s interest in various subjects and products in order to offer electronic services that are pertinent to the passengers (Lemond, p. 14 lines 11-13).
Claims 15 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (PGPUB: 2020/0334703), in view of Keen (PGPUB: 2011/0313826), in further view of Mitchell (U.S. Patent No. 8,499,324).
Claims 15 and 59: The method of claim 1, wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is at least one of: a feature video, a pre-roll video, an interstitial banner or an inter-roll banner provided via the destination channel.
Chang and Keen disclose targeted electronic advertisements provided via the destination channel as explained above. Chang and Keen do no specifically teach wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is at least one of: a feature video, a pre-roll video, an interstitial banner or an inter-roll banner.
However, the analogous art of Mitchell discloses it is known for the targeted electronic advertisement is at least one of: a feature video, a pre-roll video, an interstitial banner or an inter-roll banner provided via the channel in at least Column 4 lines 48-49 and Fig. 20 (the advertising elements can be individual or a group of Intranet home pages, URL's, video clips (e.g., feature video), labels, hypertext links, etc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the type of advertisement displayed of Chang and Keen by adding wherein the targeted electronic advertisement is at least one of: a feature video, a pre-roll video, an interstitial banner or an inter-roll banner, as taught by Mitchell, since Chang, Keen, and Mitchell are analogous art and in order to generate revenue via an on-board entertainment system (Mitchell, Column 4 line 42).
Claims 62, 63, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (PGPUB: 2020/0334703), in view of Keen (PGPUB: 2011/0313826), in further view of van Elsas et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0074603).
Claims 62, 63, and 68: The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 and the system of claim 35, wherein a same user profile may be used for all users of the client device.
Chang and Keen disclose the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 18 and the system of claim 35.
Chang and Keen do not disclose that a same user profile may be used for all users of the client device.
However, the analogous art of van Elsas discloses that it is known for a same user profile to be used for all users of the client device and advertisements are targeted to user’s based on said same user profile in at least paragraphs 55-64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chang and Keen to include a same user profile to be used for all users of the client device as disclosed by Elsas.
The motivation for doing so is to protect consumer privacy and security (van Elsas – Paragraph 9)
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, with regards to Step 2a, Prong 1, that the claims do not recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because they recite “an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device, wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user’s travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on a final destination of the user”. The examiner strongly disagrees. The argued limitation discloses the types of information received (e.g., user profile information and either itinerary information or aircraft information) from devices outside the scope of the claimed computer performing the advertising, marketing, or sales activity, as well as, using the received data to make an association (e.g., analyzing data and determining a result) for performing the advertising, marketing or sales related activity. The courts have found that receiving data, analyzing data, determining results based on the analyzing, generating tailor content, and transmitting the tailored content are all parts of an abstract idea when the abstract idea recites an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category (see at least the Electric Power Group decision, Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity I: ‘434 decision, Digitech decision, Two-Way Media ‘187 and ‘005 decisions, and Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 decision). Thus, the argued limitations recite receiving data, analyzing data, and determining results for the purpose of performing an advertising, marketing, or sales activity and, as such, recite a “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion to the contrary creating a user profile for performing an advertising, marketing or sales activity is indeed a part of the abstract idea itself and, as such is an abstract idea. Likewise, the displaying of destination information through a destination channel, and sending targeted electronic advertisement to be displayed with the destination information is an advertising, marketing, or sales activity. Both the destination information and the advertisement are advertising. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary define advertising as “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements”. Since the applicant’s specification, as well as at least claim 17, indicate that destination information is broad enough to encompass historical information, neighborhood information, transportation information, sightseeing information, activity information, hotel information, restaurant information or emergency contact information, and the claim is calling to the attention of the user such information, the destination information is advertising. Likewise, the claimed advertisement is also advertising. The claimed graphical user interface, client device, application, aircraft computing system, and aircraft data bus are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention which receives data from and transmits data to or over said graphical user interface, client device, application, aircraft computing system, and aircraft data bus. As such, these are merely elements of the abstract idea itself and not “additional elements” of the claimed invention. Thus, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” category and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues with regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claimed limitation “an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device, wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user’s travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on a final destination of the user” is an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of the computer, an improvement to other technology or technical field and as such should overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2. The examiner disagrees. It appears that the applicant is misconstruing the meaning of the term “additional elements” as used in the 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106. An “additional element” is defined as an element outside of the abstract idea itself. As the applicant correctly asserts, the 2019 PEG clearly indicates on page 53, that the examiner first performs the step of “(a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”. Thus, the examiner first identifies the elements of the abstract idea itself, and then identify any “additional elements” recited in a claim. Next, the 2019 PEG indicates the examiner to perform the step of “(b) evaluation those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. Thus, it is the “additional elements” of the claim that are evaluated to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. In the instant case the scope of: claim 1 and its dependent claim, is limited to a method being performed by a server (e.g., a general-purpose computer); claim 17 and its dependent claims, is limited to a computer program product being executed by a processor (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing instructions); and claim 35 and its dependent claims is limited to a system with a processor and a memory executing instructions (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing instructions). Thus, the client device, the aircraft computing systems, and the aircraft data bus, recited in the argued limitation, are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed general-purpose computer (e.g., server). Therefore, they are abstract concepts that the applicant intends their server to interact with and not physical machines the claims comprise. Hence, the client device, the aircraft computing systems, and the aircraft data bus considered to be part of the abstract idea itself. Thus, the argued limitation of “an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device, wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user’s travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on a final destination of the user” contains no “additional elements” within the scope of the applicant’s invention because the entire limitation part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” within the scope of the applicant’s invention is a general-purpose computer with generic computer elements that is used to merely apply the abstract idea, which considered both individual and in combination, is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. As such, any purported improvement to the function of the computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely being applied using the general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). The same result is obtained when analyzing the argued limitations of “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device; and transmitting the primary content and the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface on the client device”. First, the examiner notes that, as indicated above, “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on the client device”, is being interpreted as “transmitting destination information through a destination channel for display via an application executing on the client device”, because the applicant’s disclosure does not have support for a computer with a processor that is capable of executing instruction on a client device, so that the client device performs the action of displaying. As such, the application executing on the client device, the client device, and the graphical user interface on the client device are all outside the scope of the applicant invented server. Thus, these elements are all elements of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the argued limitations contain no additional elements within the scope of the applicant invention that would be capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Any purported improvement to a computer technology is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely being applied using the general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic decision). However, assuming in arguendo, that the client device, the application executing on the client device, and the graphical user interface executing on the client device were within the scope of the applicant’s invention and required analysis as an “additional element” of the claimed invention, they would be insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Considered individually, these elements amount to no more than another general-purpose computer (i.e., the client device) executing instructions (i.e., the application) to display data using a generic computer element (i.e., the graphical user interface; see the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision which states a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element). Considered in combination the claims would recite a first general-purpose computer with generic computer component performing every significant of the abstract idea and a second general-purpose computer with generic computer components that merely performs the insignificant extra solution activity of receiving and displaying data. Thus, whether considered individually or in combination, the additional elements would amount to no more than using two general-purpose computers with generic computer components to merely apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Any purported improvement obtained from practicing the claimed invention is rooted in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the two general-purpose, one of which only performs insignificant extra-solution activities. Improvement of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements to ineligible subject matter. As such, the argued limitations include no “additional elements” capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respected to the 35 USC 101 rejections, that the claim limitation “creating a user profile associated with the user of the client device based on the received user profile information associated with the user and an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device, the user profile including itinerary information based in part on a user’s final travel destination or on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus, and the user profile is created on the aircraft during flight” overcome the rejection under Step 2b because it recites an arrangement of non-conventional and non-generic limitations that recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The examiner strongly disagrees. Once again, this argument appears to be based on the applicant misconstruing the term “additional element”. As indicated in the previous response to the previous argument, an “additional element” is defined as an element that is not part of the abstract idea itself. Since, the client device, aircraft computing system and aircraft data bus are outside the scope of the applicant’s claimed computer/server which performs the creating, they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the applicant’s claimed server and, as such, the client device, aircraft computing system, and aircraft data bus are considered part of the abstract idea itself. Thus, entirety of the argued limitation is part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components of a server with a processor and a memory executing instruction which is insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. This is likewise true for the argued limitation of “displaying destination information through a destination channel via an application executing on a client device; and sending the targeted electronic advertisement to the client device to be displayed with the destination information in the destination channel using a graphical user interface. Based on the examiner’s interpretation of this limitation in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the application executing on the client device, the client device, and the graphical user interface are outside the scope of the applicant invention and, as such, cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention. Thus, the entirety of the argued limitations are part of the abstract idea itself which is merely being applied by the applicant’s invented server. As the applicant correctly indicated, on page 5 of the Applicant’s Arguments, the examiner, under Step 2b, is required to considered whether the claims recite “additional elements”, both individually and as an ordered combination, that amount to “significantly more”. Both individually and as an ordered combination the claims recite a general-purpose computer with generic computer components merely applying the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b. The claims do not recite and Inflight Entertainment system, and even if the examiner where to considered the claimed server/computer to be an Inflight Entertainment system, the type of data transmitted for display and transmitted to be displayed would be insufficient to be considered “significantly more” under Step 2b because such limitations are considered “insignificant extra-solution activity”. The purported “not routine conventional activity” is a non-routine and conventional activity that is part of the abstract idea itself. Step 2b only considers whether the “additional elements”, individually or in ordered combination” recite “significantly more”. Hence, it is immaterial whether one or more steps of the abstract idea itself are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections, the applicant additionally argued that the graphical user interface is an improved graphical user interface similar to Abstract Idea Example 37 and, as such, overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. The examiner disagrees. First, the graphical user interface is outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, considered part of the abstract idea itself. Thus, the graphical user interface cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention. Even if the applicant were to amend the claims to positively recite the invention comprises: the client device; the graphical user interface executing on the client device; and the currently claimed server, the claimed graphical user interface would not be sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b. Unlike Abstract Idea Example 37, where the graphical user interface overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claims recite a specific manner of automatically rearranging and displaying icons to the user based on usage of the icons which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, the instant claims merely claim a graphical user interface that displays data. Thus, the instant claims are much more similar to the claims of the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision which states that a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element. As such, even amending the claims to positively include the client device and the graphical user interface would result in an invention comprising two general-purpose computers with generic computer components, wherein the first computer performs every significant step of the invention and the second computer merely performs insignificant extra-solution activity. Such “additional elements” would be insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 and insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC 102 rejection, the applicant argues that Chang does not disclose “an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device” or “itinerary information based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computer systems over an aircraft data bus or on a final destination of the user”. This argument is moot as none of the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 102 using the reference of Chang alone. Instead, the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 103 using Chang and Keen as the base references for the independent claims with some additional references combined to teach some of the dependent claims. The examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the rejections have been maintained. Assuming the applicant intended to argue with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 that Chang and Keen as combined do not teach these limitations, the examiner disagrees. As cited in the instant rejection cited above, Chang and Keen, as combined, clearly discloses the argued limitations. Chang clearly discloses in paragraph 45 that the profile of each user is associated with log in credential. As such, every user that uses the client device must log in with their individual log in credentials. Thus, there is an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device. Furthermore, Chang clearly discloses in paragraphs 4, 31 and 51-54: storing a distributed rewards ledger in memory, including the reward, completion criteria, and identification of the user; the presenting can be further based on the user profile. Thus, each user has a different identification which means that there is an association is made between the user profile and a particular user from multiple users of the client device. In regard to the limitation “wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user's final travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus or on the final travel destination of the user”, the examiner first notes that Chang need not teach “on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus“ to reject the claim. As long as Chang teaches “wherein the user profile includes itinerary information with a user's final travel destination and the itinerary information is based in part on the final travel destination of the user”, the limitations of the claims, as currently amended, are disclosed by Chang because, as currently claimed the itinerary information need only be based in part on “the final travel destination” “or” the claimed “aircraft information”. As such, the claim does not require Chang to teach the aircraft information to be used to properly rejection the claims. Thus, when Chang discloses, in paragraph 31, one or more databases for storing one or more user profiles, a plurality of offers (e.g., from the third-party server), and data associated with various characteristics related to individual users (e.g., based on the profiles), route of flight, time of flight (e.g., itinerary information), and/or destination (e.g., user's final travel destination/location), he is disclosing the itinerary information is based in part on the final travel destination of the user and the limitations of the claims, as currently amended, have been met. However, Chang additionally discloses that the itinerary information is based in part on aircraft information which may be received from aircraft computing systems over an aircraft data bus in at least paragraphs 38 where he discloses that a communication bus provides intercommunication between the components of device 200, wherein device 200, which may be the airside server, includes more than one processor including a distributed processor, as per paragraphs 26-28, when combined with paragraph 23 which discloses that the offers presented can be based on specific geographic location during the flight data and paragraph 31 which indicates the information stored in the memory of device 200 can be implemented as a distributed memory system. Hence, the “specific geographic location during the flight” must be obtained from somewhere and then stored in a distributed memory system of device 200. Since device 200 can be the airside server with distributed memories and/or distributed processors, which is on the airplane, said distributed memories and/or distributed processors, are aircraft computing systems which communicate over a communication bus. Thus, Chang discloses both alternatives suggested by the claim limitation and the limitations of the claims, as currently written, have been met and the rejections maintained. In order for the processor of the inflight server to obtain said specific geographic location during the flight, the distributed memory which may be must communicate this information to the processor via the communication bus. Even, if the applicant were to amend the claims to require the aircraft information be received from an aircraft computer system different from the airside server, the claims would not overcome the current prior art of record because the prior art of Keen discloses in that it is known for a GPS system carried by the aircraft to provide current location information of the aircraft. Since, the invention of Chang uses such current location information but does not disclose where the current location information comes from it would be obvious for the currently location information to come from the GPS system carried by the aircraft given that there are a limited number of predictable ways for the invention of Chang to have such information available for use in determining the offers presented. Thus, the limitations of the claims, as currently written, are clearly taught by Chang, and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues the Chang does not disclose the limitation of clam 59. This argument is moots as claim 59 has not been rejected by the prior art of Chang alone. Instead, it has been rejected using the combined prior art of Chang, Keen and Mitchell. The examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622