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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on February 17, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the claim objections, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn. However, note the new claim objections, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims do not describe various mathematical relationships, calculations, etc. Aside from whether or not that is the case, note that the abstract-idea category upon which Examiner is relying for the 101 rejections is “certain method(s) of organizing human activity”. This is due to the various aspects of the claims dealing with aircraft flight management and corresponding passengers. Note that the various data manipulations, including the use of the models, are for the various flight management features; therefore, it is fair to include such data manipulations as part of the certain method(s) of organizing human activity. Note that Example 39 is distinguishable from Applicant’s claims because the analysis in Example 39 did not find a judicial exception, while Applicant’s claims have “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” due to their aircraft flight management features.
Applicant next argues that Applicant’s claims are trained based on feedback. In response, updating machine-learning models based on feedback does not appear to be an improvement in the current state of the machine-learning arts. Therefore, Examiner does not believe this would invoke the computing/technological improvement consideration for eligibility.
Applicant next argues, with reference to the Desjardins decision, that Applicant’s claims are eligible as an improvement to machine-learning technology. Applicant first references Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0094]. This paragraph describes one machine-learning model being used to analyze another machine-learning model, in order to determine causes of delays predicted by the analyzed model. Examiner is not persuaded that this is a machine-learning improvement in the sense of Desjardins because it does not appear that the specification is indicating that using one machine-learning model to analyze the other machine-learning model in this way represents an improvement to the technological field of machine-learning. Rather, the paragraph appears to be describing a particular application of using two such models in this way, for determining the cause of predicted flight delays. Therefore, Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive.
Applicant also mentions Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0093], in making the Desjardins-related argument. However, Examiner has reviewed this paragraph, and it does not appear to Examiner from this paragraph that Applicant is claiming to have developed the Shapley tools and techniques being argued here for 101. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the forty-third line of claim 14, please replace “Shapely” with --Shapley-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
b. In the third line of claim 28, please replace “Shapely” with --Shapley-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
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 1-6, 11-18, 24-26, and 28 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.
As per Claims 1 and 14, each of these claims has been amended to state “the second machine learning model being co-trained with the first machine learning model to ((1)) learn a correlation between the inputs of the first machine learning model and the plurality of delay distribution vectors output by the first machine learning model”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed and did not find support for co-training these two models; for at least this reason, Examiner did not find support for this overall limitation. In attempting to find support for such co-training, Examiner performed text-string searches of Applicant’s specification for “cotrain”, “co-train”, “train”, and “together”. The closest disclosure that Examiner found to such support was in Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0094]. This paragraph described some training of the machine-learning models with respect to each other, but Examiner could not find disclosure of “co-training” the models. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are rejected for this reason under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
As per Claims 14 and 28, each of these claims recite determining one or more Shapely values. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed and did not find support for determining Shapely values. In attempting to find support for such limitations, Examiner performed text-string searches of Applicant’s specification for “shap”. The closest disclosure that Examiner found to providing such support was in Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0093], which discloses “SHapley Additive exPlanations”, but this is not the same as disclosing determining Shapley values. Therefore, claims 14 and 28 are rejected for this reason under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
As per claims 2-6, 11-13, 15-18, 24-26, and 28, these claims depend from claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, and incorporate those issues via such dependencies. Therefore, claims 2-6, 11-13, 15-18, 24-26, and 28 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-18, 24-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 14, Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s):
- receiving user travel data associated with a plurality of scheduled flights associated with a plurality of flight legs for a user;
- receiving airport data associated with a plurality of departing airports for the plurality of scheduled flights, the airport data including at least one of airport traffic information or flight delay information;
- receiving weather data associated with departure time information for the plurality of scheduled flights and location data for the plurality of departing airports, the weather data including past hourly weather information and predicted future hourly weather information;
- receiving airline data associated with at least one airline providing the plurality of scheduled flights, the airline data including at least one of airline on-time departure information, airline on-time arrival information or crew schedule information;
- receiving event data associated with the departure time information for the plurality of scheduled flights, the event data including at least one of information related to one or more events occurring in a plurality of locations of the plurality of departing airports or national holiday information;
- providing the user travel data, the airport data, the weather data, the airline data, and the event data as inputs to a first learning model to cause output of a plurality of delay distribution vectors for the plurality of scheduled flights, the first learning model being trained using at least historical airport data, historical weather data, historical airline data, and historical event data;
- weighting at least one feature from each delay distribution vector from the plurality of delay distribution vectors to produce a plurality of weighted delay distribution vectors, based on at least one of the historical airport data, the historical weather data, the historical airline data, or the historical event data;
- generating a linked list having a plurality of nodes and at least one pointer that represents the plurality of flight legs, each node from the plurality of nodes (1) being associated with (a) a scheduled flight different from remaining scheduled flights from the plurality of scheduled flights and (b) a weighted delay distribution vector (i) from the plurality of weighted delay distribution vectors and (ii) associated with that scheduled flight and (2) having at least one weight based on that weighted delay distribution vector;
- providing the linked list as input to a second learning model to identify a cause for a departure delay, based on one or more features (1) of the plurality of delay distribution vectors and (2) associated with one or more of: the airport data, the weather data, the airline data or the event data, the second learning model being co-trained with the first learning model to ((1)) learn a correlation between the inputs of the first learning model and the plurality of delay distribution vectors output by the first learning model( and (2) determine one or more Shapely values for the one or more features to identify the cause for the departure delay);
- outputting an indication that a scheduled flight from the plurality of scheduled flights is delayed;
- outputting a representation of the one or more features causing the departure delay;
- modifying a boarding time value based on the cause of the departure delay, to produce a modified boarding time value;
- in response to a location data indicating that the user is at a boarding gate associated with the scheduled flight, suppressing generating a notification of the modified boarding time value to the user.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to flight reservations, which are commonly commercial;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages user behavior with respect to their flight itinerary; manages interactions between passengers and airlines, both of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a processor; machine-learning models; outputting via presenting; a user interface; providing data via a signal; a user compute device; a system, comprising: at least one processor; and non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 a computer or improves any other technology.
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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-6, 11-13, 15-18, 24-26, and 28, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- more machine learning model(s) (claims 3-5 and 16-18);
- an audio signal (claims 4 and 17);
- runtime (claim 25).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 26 merely adds detail to the meaning of the updating condition.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. 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 a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-18, 24-26, and 28 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Liao, US 10748089 B2 (method and system for automatic evaluation of robustness and disruption management for commercial airline flight operations);
b. Yang, Ronghai, Security and Privacy of Single Sign-On Protocols: Vulnerability Analysis and Automated Testing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, August 2017 (supports that “using a single sign-on mechanism to access an account of the user” is a generic computing component);
c. Kim, Mijung, The Effects of External Cues on Media Habit and Use: Push Notification Alerts and Mobile Application Usage Habits, Michigan State University, 2014 (supports that “a push notification” is a generic computing component).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628