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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 23 March 2026. Claims 1, 14, 19, and 21 have been amended. Claim 6 was previously canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 14, 19, and 21 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. An updated prior art search was conducted, as necessitated by amendment. Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1, and similarly claim 14 and 19, in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is updated and detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, but to a computer-implemented method of generating optimized pilot training resource schedules using a specific algorithmic technique (integer linear programming domain - ILP). Applicant further asserts that “the claim limitations do not recite managing personal behavior, training relationships, or interactions between people. The claim limitations recite receiving structured constraint inputs, analyzing those inputs, generating scheduling data using a specific algorithmic technique, and outputting the schedule data. These are computer operations, not human activity management.” Applicant also asserts that “column generation from an integer linear programming domain is a specific algorithmic technique that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because a human scheduler with pen and paper cannot perform ILP column generation across dozens, hundreds, or thousands of pilots and training resources”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites steps in a method for organizing human activities, a judicial exception for providing a user with a personalized training schedule based on information regarding pilots and pilot training resources. These functions executed by the processor are steps of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by scheduling pilots for required training and pairing pilots together to train together, which MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides are certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, “receiving structured constraint inputs, analyzing those inputs, generating scheduling data using a specific algorithmic technique, and outputting the schedule data” are analogous to the ineligible claims of Electric Power Group, as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which states that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Accordingly, the claims recite the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Using integer linear programming domain algorithms and computations for schedule optimization falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Complex math does not make a claim patent eligible. The MPEP explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component (i.e., a processor) performs the acts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(C). Automating the task of comparing data (e.g., training, cost, rules, scheduling data) does not improve computer functionality. Use of a computer as a mere tool to automate a process to make it faster, more efficient, and/or to process a higher volume of data, does not amount to an improvement in the computer’s functionality. The additional data processing elements merely apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and therefore do not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Unlike Enfish, these recitations are not directed to any specific improvement in the computing device or software. See Spec. at [0045] (“As used herein, the term "control unit," "central processing unit," "CPU," "computer," or the like may include any processor-based or microprocessor- based system including systems using microcontrollers… and any other circuit or processor including hardware, software, or a combination thereof capable of executing the functions described herein”). The use of generic computing devices is not sufficient to render the claims something other than an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that the amended claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application through specific improvements to how the computer system operates, citing the Specification at [para. 0040-0043] describing “combinatorial optimization.” Applicant further asserts that the “the resource scheduling control unit uses the inputs to affect how the computer allocates computational work during schedule generation, not merely to display data or produce a report. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments are more specific than the recited clam language. The claims recite limitations for data processing, and not to a specific improvement to the underlying data processing technology. Optimizing data is an abstract idea. There is no indication in the Specification that Applicant has achieved an advancement or improvement in computer processing technology. See generally Spec. All of the data processing, memory, and input-output devices, as well as their interconnections, are described at a high level of generality that presumes familiarity on the part of the reader. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept because the claim in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements. The claims are directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more, and are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of collecting pilot training scheduling information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device, independent claim 14 recites a process, and independent claim 19 recites a product for scheduling aircraft pilot training resources. Independent claims 1, 14, and 19 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
receive inputs from the one or more input devices of the one or more user interfaces including information regarding pilots and pilot training resources that also includes information regarding training already complete, and training that still needs to be completed for the pilots, natural pairings identifying individual pilots who are to train together in relation to one or more of the pilot training resources, and unnatural pairings identifying individual pilots who are precluded from training together in relation to one or more of the pilot training resources,
analyze the inputs that include information regarding pilots and pilot training resources that also includes information regarding training already complete, and training that still needs to be completed for the pilots to determine schedules for the pilots;
generate the schedules for the pilots using column generation from an integer linear programming domain, in which the one or more processors iteratively assign each pilot or natural pairing a schedule at a minimum cost and select an overall minimal-cost assignment such that no pilot training resource slots are over- assigned, and repeat the iterative assignment until no substantial cost improvement is achieved, based on the inputs including the information regarding the training already complete and the training that still needs to be completed, and
output the schedules to the one or more user interfaces.
Under Step 1 independent claims 1, 14, and 19 recite at least one step or act, including generating schedules for the pilots. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, because the recited limitations for receiving inputs including information regarding pilots and pilot training resources, generating a schedule for the pilots based on the inputs, analyzing the inputs, and outputting a schedule for training pilots is a form of managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (pairing pilots for joint training, trainee pilot with trainer/teacher resource) the claims fall within the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations recited in claim 1 for receiving inputs, analyzing inputs, generating schedules, and outputting the schedules, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (comparing and evaluating information). None of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) “[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”). Additionally, using integer linear programming domain algorithms and computations for schedule optimization falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea of generating training schedules for pilots.
Further, the steps for receiving inputs and outputting a schedule are recited broadly and amount to data gathering and transmission that is construed as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a control unit (processor and storage device), and interface for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0045] states: “As used herein, the term "control unit," "central processing unit," "CPU," "computer," or the like may include any processor-based or microprocessor- based system including systems using microcontrollers… and any other circuit or processor including hardware, software, or a combination thereof capable of executing the functions described herein.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The claimed invention merely performs a scheduling process, that is routinely performed by humans, on a computer. The claims fail to recite limitations directed toward use of the generated output to perform an automated function. As drafted the output is analogous to a report that is displayed or presented to a user as decision making tool. The output is not used to control the function of a separate system and the limitations fail to include technical details related to the specific improvements to the functioning of the computer processor. Executing a scheduling process in a computing environment merely indicates a field of use, i.e. execution on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
While specific user interaction with a graphical user interface object that causes the interface to perform a specific function in response to the particular interface interaction, that goes beyond a general link to generic user interface technology for displaying data or subsets of data for human decision making (similar to generating a report) may constitute a practical implementation of an abstract idea under certain circumstances, the claims here in fall short. The limitations herein receive input and output data analysis results in a manner that does not go beyond the generic use of an interface. Further, receiving input and displaying an output have been construed by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not confer patentability to an otherwise abstract concept. The subject matter of the independent claims herein does not improve the functioning of a device nor is it an improvement to a technology or a technical field. Therefore, the claimed user interface as an additional element performs generic user interface functions and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15 - 18, and 20-21 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The dependent claim limitations merely narrow the mental process/method of organizing human activity of scheduling pilot training by describing the types of data used as input to generate the schedule. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, independent claims 14 and 19 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1-5 and 7-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1, and similarly independent claims 14 and 19, in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
Regarding the prior art, while Rissin et al. (US 2019/0122318) and Schoensee et al. (US 2022/0148455) combined disclose a system for producing an optimized flight training schedule based on data input including available instructors, travel data, training locations, and available pilots, and customizing a flight course based on the specific needs and skills of the user, the combined references fail to teach or otherwise disclose using column generation from an integer linear programming domain, in which the one or more processors iteratively assign each pilot or natural pairing a schedule at a minimum cost and select an overall minimal-cost assignment such that no pilot training resource slots are over- assigned, and repeat the iterative assignment until no substantial cost improvement is achieved. Since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 14, and 19 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of the prior art of record and any of the additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. Accordingly the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn. As a result, claims 1-5 and 7-21 are eligible over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Lian et al. (US 2022/0245564) - linear programming optimization logics described herein (e.g., rolling horizon optimization with column generation) provide coarser optimization logics than conventional scheduling systems; configuration panel 830 can be configured to allow an administrator to configure one or more parameters of a schedule optimization algorithm described in activities 402-411 (FIG. 4). For example, configuration panel 830 can allow schedules to be determined for a single driver or as a batch (e.g., for multiple drivers). In many embodiments, a rolling horizon optimization is then repeated at a specified periodicity (e.g., daily). In this way, a rolling horizon optimization can continually optimize a schedule as new data is received due to dynamic conditions. In many embodiments, each problem extracted in the rolling horizon optimization can be solved using column generation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights