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 .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the Remarks response filed on 8/5/2025.
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.
All claims 1-4,8,12-15 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 15 and product Claim 8 (herein called Additional Independent Claims). The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of: retrieving information before a flight for an aircraft, the information including passenger fare purchase data, passenger seat location data, aircraft configuration defining a layout of the aircraft, functions available on the flight controlled by an in- flight entertainment (IFE) system;
prior to the flight, generating a digital rights object for the aircraft, the digital rights object defining media content and functionality that will be made available to each passenger at a passenger seat;
uploading the digital rights object to the aircraft;
parsing the digital rights object to map media content and functionality for each passenger seat;
enabling by the IFE system, an upgrade or downgrade of digital rights of a passenger as defined by the digital rights object;
updating mapping of media content and functionality for delivering media content and functionality, based on the upgrade or downgrade; and
delivering media content and access to the functionality for the passenger, based on the upgrade or downgrade to the digital rights of the passenger.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “uploading, parsing, updating, and delivering parsing the digital rights object” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory to execute the machine executable code to” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4,8,12-15 and 21-31 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cou (U.S. Patent 10701132) in view of Boyer (U.S. Patent Pub 20050055278) and Nakano (U.S. Patent Pub 20200389307 )
Re claim 1 & 8 & 15: Cou discloses:
A method of accessing an aircraft configuration and functionality available for aircraft passengers on an aircraft in-flight based on passenger fare purchase data and passenger seat location data executed by a ground based system and an in- flight entertainment (IFE) system of the aircraft, the method comprising: (see Cou Figure 3-5)
A non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions for performing a method, comprising machine executable code, which when executed by at least one machine, causes the machine to: (see Cou Figure 6-7)
A system, comprising: a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory to execute the machine executable code to: (see Cou Figure 6-7)
retrieving information by a configurator of the ground based system separate and apart from the aircraft before a flight for the aircraft, the information including the passenger fare purchase data retrieved from a purchased fare class data structure, the passenger seat location data retrieved from a departure control system aircraft configuration defining a layout of the aircraft, functions available on the flight controlled by the IFE system of the aircraft (see Cou Figure 3-5, item 500-510 + Figure 6 item 640)
prior to the flight, generating by an in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC) digital rights manager in the ground based system a digital rights object for the aircraft, as a part of a digital rights data structure and a seat specific feature access database, the digital rights object defining individual digital rights regarding which media content and functionality will be made available for each passenger at a corresponding passenger seat of a plurality of passenger seats based on at least the passenger fair purchase data and the passenger seat location data; (see Cou Figure 3 item 500-510 + Figure 6 item 640)
uploading the digital rights object from the ground based system to the IFE system of aircraft via a communication interface of the IFE system by uploading the digital rights data structure and the seat specific feature access database (see Cou Figure 3 item 506-530 + Figure 6 item 640)
parsing by an onboard configurator of the IFE system, the digital rights object to map media content and functionality for each passenger seat of the plurality of passenger seats; (see Cou Figure 3 item 506-530)
receiving, by a process of the IFE system, a first input from a crew device and a second input from a passenger to modify the digital rights; (see Cou Figure 3 item 506-530)
performing by the processor of the IFE system onboard, a digital upgrade or downgrade of digital rights of a passenger as defined by the digital rights object by modifying the digital right that are assigned by the digital rights data structure and/or including in the seat specific feature access database based on mapping of the media content and the functionality for each passenger seat of the plurality of passenger seats (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
updating by the onboard configurator of the IFE system onboard, mapping of media content and functionality for delivering media content and functionality, based on the digital upgrade or downgrade associated with the aircraft configuration and functionality available on the aircraft in-flgiht; and (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
on the flight, delivering by the IFE system onboard,media content and access to the functionality for the passenger, based on the digital upgrade or downgrade associated with the aircraft configuration and functionality available for the passenger in-flight. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
While examiner believes, Cou teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Boyer and Nakano additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify Cou by adapting any features of Boyer and Nakano.
It is clear that one would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. Specifically both Cou and Boyer and Nakano both relate to same subject area of in-flight entertainment.
retrieving information by a configurator of a ground based system separate and apart from an aircraft before a flight for the aircraft, the information including passenger fare purchase data retrieved from a purchased fare class data structure, passenger seat location data retrieved from a departure control system aircraft configuration defining a layout of the aircraft, functions available on the flight controlled by an in- flight entertainment (IFE) system; (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
prior to the flight, generating by an in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC) digital rights manager in the ground based system a digital rights object for the aircraft, the digital rights object defining individual digital rights regarding which media content and functionality will be made available for each passenger at a corresponding passenger seat of a plurality of passenger seats based on at least the passenger fair purchase data and the passenger seat location data; (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
uploading the digital rights object from the ground based system to the IFE system of aircraft via a communication interface of the IFE system; (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
parsing by an onboard configurator of the IFE system, the digital rights object to map media content and functionality for each passenger seat of the plurality of passenger seats; (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
enabling by a processor of the IFE system, an upgrade or downgrade of digital rights of a passenger as defined by the digital rights object; (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
updating by the onboard configurator of the IFE system, mapping of media content and functionality for delivering media content and functionality, based on the upgrade or downgrade; and (see Boyer Figure 8, item 60-68 + Figure 5)
delivering by the IFE system media content and access to the functionality for the passenger, based on the upgrade or downgrade to the digital rights of the passenger. (see Boyer Figure 8, item 70 + Figure 5)
specifically Nakano
retrieving information by a configurator of a ground based system separate and apart from an aircraft before a flight for the aircraft, the information including passenger fare purchase data retrieved from a purchased fare class data structure, passenger seat location data retrieved from a departure control system aircraft configuration defining a layout of the aircraft, functions available on the flight controlled by an in- flight entertainment (IFE) system; (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 510-520)
prior to the flight, generating by an in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC) digital rights manager in the ground based system a digital rights object for the aircraft, the digital rights object defining individual digital rights regarding which media content and functionality will be made available for each passenger at a corresponding passenger seat of a plurality of passenger seats based on at least the passenger fair purchase data and the passenger seat location data; (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 510-520)
uploading the digital rights object from the ground based system to the IFE system of aircraft via a communication interface of the IFE system; (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 510-530 + para 0070-0071)
parsing by an onboard configurator of the IFE system, the digital rights object to map media content and functionality for each passenger seat of the plurality of passenger seats; (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 530-570)
enabling by a processor of the IFE system, an upgrade or downgrade of digital rights of a passenger as defined by the digital rights object; (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 530-570)
updating by the onboard configurator of the IFE system, mapping of media content and functionality for delivering media content and functionality, based on the upgrade or downgrade; and (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 530-570)
delivering by the IFE system media content and access to the functionality for the passenger, based on the upgrade or downgrade to the digital rights of the passenger. (see Nakano Figure 5A, item 570)
Re claim 2 & 9 & 16: see claim 1 +
further comprising: modifying, by a crew device, the digital rights of the passenger based on a passenger seat change. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 3 & 10 & 17: see claim 1 +
unlocking a feature lock to enable access to a function for the passenger, in response to the upgrade of the digital rights. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 4 & 11 & 18: see claim 1 +
further comprising: locking a feature lock to deny access to a function to the passenger, in response to the downgrade of the digital rights. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 5 & 12: see claim 1 +
wherein the upgraded or downgraded functionality involves displaying advertisements by the IFE system for one or more products. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 6 & 13 & 19: see claim 1 +
wherein the upgraded or downgraded functionality involves pairing a passenger electronic device to the IFE system. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 7 & 14 & 20: see claim 1 +
wherein the upgraded or downgraded functionality involves network access to one or more passenger devices. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 21: see claim 1 +
further comprising: disabling advertisements provided by the IFE system in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and enabling advertisements provided by the IFE system in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 22: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling access to one or more overhead storage bins in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the access to the one or more overhead storage bins in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 23: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling access to one or more lavatories in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the access to the one or more lavatories in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 24 see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling access to wireless communication for a passenger electronic device in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling access to the wireless communication for a passenger electronic device in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 25: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling electrical power access for a passenger electronic device in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the electrical power access for the passenger electronic device in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 26: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling an overhead lighting brightness in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the overhead lighting brightness in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 27: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling an internet access in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the internet access in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 28: see claim 1 +
further comprising: enabling a seat arm control functionality in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and disabling the seat arm control functionality in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 29: see claim 1 +
further comprising: increasing availability for at least one of online product purchases or service purchases in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and decreasing the availability for at least one of online product purchases or service purchases in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 30: see claim 1 +
further comprising: increasing a credit limit for at least one of online product purchases or service purchases in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; anddecreasing the credit limit for at least one of online product purchases or service purchases in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Re claim 31: see claim 1 +
further comprising: increasing a number of available crews for passenger service in response to the digital upgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database; and decreasing the number of available crews for passenger service in response to the digital downgrade of the digital rights based on the seat specific feature access database. (see Cou Figure 3 item 516-534)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Answers to the arguments on the amended limitations which change the scope of the claims, will be addressed in the action above. Applicant's art arguments are considered moot due to new grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive by 101 or 103 arguments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693