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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's “SUBMISSION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.114” of 06 February 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Submission”) has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 as presented in the Submission.
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, 7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “system” of claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, the “method” of claims 12-16, 18, 19, 23, and 24 constitutes a process under the statute, and the “system” of claim 25 also constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“... analyze a plurality of tail assignments ... to determine more retiming options for the plurality of tail assignments of the aircraft scheduled for flights according to an original schedule, wherein the retiming options include retiming times that differ from original times of the plurality of tail assignments within the original schedule, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
“... discard one or more of the retiming options that undesirably affect one or more subsequent flights; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
“... output ... information regarding the original schedule, the retiming options, and a revised schedule based on the one or more retiming options, and ... show the original schedule, the retiming options, and the revised schedule ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
“... select a selected one of the retiming options based on a connecting flight and a connecting passenger, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
“... reschedule a tail assignment of the plurality of tail assignments and the connecting passengers, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
“... operate the aircraft according to the selected one of the retiming options that is based on the plurality of tail assignments data analyzed ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: fundamental economic principles or practices, including resource scheduling and management, and mitigating risks associated therewith; commercial interactions, including sales activities or behaviors in association with airline operations; and managing interactions between people, including those that perform tasks necessary for airline operations, which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “analyze,” “discard,” “output,” “select,” and “reschedule” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
“A system comprising: an aircraft; a user interface having a display; and a scheduling control unit including one or more processors, wherein the scheduling control unit is in communication with the user interface, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h).
The claimed “analyze” takes place “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h).
The claimed “output” is of “one or more signals to the user interface, wherein the one or more signals include” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h).
The “wherein the user interface is configured to” performs the claimed “show” -See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “show” is “on the display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “select” is performed “automatically” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “operate the aircraft” is performed “automatically” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “analyzed” occurs “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); 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, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, and insignificant application in the form of cutting hair after first determining the hair style, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “select the selected one of the retiming options, and revise the original schedule based on the selected one of the retiming options” of claim 2, the “select the selected one of the retiming options based on one or more connecting flights of one or more connecting passengers” of claim 3, the “select the selected one of the retiming options based on a cost reduction in relation to the original schedule” of claim 4, the “stores the original schedule” of claim 5, the “wherein the plurality of tail assignments include one or more tail numbers associated with flight numbers” of claim 7, the “assign a different aircraft to one or more of the retiming options in response to an original aircraft being unavailable for the one or more of the retiming options” of claim 10, the “discard the one or more of the retiming options if the one or more of the retiming options prevents the aircraft from a subsequent flight” of claim 21, and the “discard the one or more of the retiming options if the one or more of the retiming options prevents another aircraft from flying a previously scheduled flight” of claim 22). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “system” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically” of claim 2; the “system” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically” of claim 3; the “system” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically” of claim 4; the “system,” “schedule database,” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is in communication with the schedule database” of claim 5, the “system” of claim 7, the “system” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically” of claim 10, the “system” and “wherein the scheduling control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system” of claim 11; the “wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to” of claim 21, and the “wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to” of claim 22). Accordingly, claims 2-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 12-16, 18, 19, 23, and 24, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 21, and 22 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-16, 18, 19, 23, and 24. Claims 12-16, 18, 19, 23, and 24 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 25, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and to claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 25. Claim 25 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
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 1-5, 7, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0191678 A1 to Shetty et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty”), in view of EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 3 444 763 A1 to Arguello et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Arguello”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0111197 A1 to Kipersztok et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kipersztok”).
Regarding claim 1, Shetty discloses the following limitations:
“A system comprising: ...” - Shetty discloses, “A scheduling system” (Abstract).
“... an aircraft; ...” - Shetty discloses, “aircraft” (para. [0013]).
“... a user interface having a display; and ...” - Shetty discloses, “User Interfaces” (para. [0093]), including elements of, or forms of, a “screen” (paras. [0096], [0097], [0098], and [0110]-[0116]).
“... a scheduling control unit including one or more processors, wherein the scheduling control unit is in communication with the user interface, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to: ...” - Shetty discloses, “The software framework consists of three parts, a data management system, an assignment system and a disruption handling system” (para. [0031]), “a computer system 100 comprises a processor 110” (para. [0035]), “Programs in storage 130 comprise a disruption handling system (DHS) that includes decision support system engine 145, objective function specifier 150, external interface 160” (para. [0036]), and “The following list presents some user interfaces 160” (para. [0094]). The software and system framework, including the processor in communication with the external interface, to perform described functions, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... analyze a plurality of tail assignments in real time to determine retiming options for the plurality of tail assignments of the aircraft scheduled for flights according to an original schedule, wherein the retiming options include retiming times that differ from original times of the plurality of tail assignments within the original schedule, ...” - Shetty discloses, “After the tail assignment or resource allocation, the aircraft starts servicing schedules. Often the operations of airlines are subjected to disruptions, because of factors such as weather, airport restrictions, aircraft unavailability and a variety of other reasons. These disruptions can have a cascading effect, so that a disruption directly affecting one schedule results in another disruption affecting a different schedule” (para. [0004]), “A scheduling system reschedules based on the affect such rescheduling has on cascading costs” (para. [0005]), “In one embodiment shown in a high level block diagram in FIG. 1, a computer system 100 comprises a processor 110 and memory 120” (para. [0035]), “External interface 160 (EI) is an interface, that provides the real time data needed for decision making” (para. [0038]), and “Solutions to disruptions are provided to a tail assignment function 1560, and ultimately to a trip master 1565 for servicing” (para. [0143]). Rescheduling tail assignments for aircraft that perform flights, wherein rescheduling indicates changing from an initial schedule and performing flights at different times, and wherein the processes are performed at computer processor speeds (in real time), in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... discard one or more of the retiming options that undesirably affect one or more subsequent flights, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “Cascading costs include the cost of further disruptions to schedules as a result of proposed solutions to a disruption” (abstract), “flight delay may result in passengers missing connections; crews missing their next duties; non-availability of this aircraft for subsequent flights; and many other events affecting the ability to accomplish a flight at a desired time” (para. [0004]), and “The user is presented with all the decisions and their (economic) value against a disruption. The user can select a particular decision of his/her choice at 360. In some embodiments, the selection is made by the DHM. Once a decision is selected, all other decisions that might use "the resources used in the selected decision" are made unavailable to the user” (para. [0083]). Making decisions unavailable when they are not selected, because they do not adequately address cascading disruptions and cost impacts to subsequent flights (in contrast with the selected decision), in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... output one or more signals to the user interface, wherein the one or more signals include information regarding the original schedule, the retiming options, and a revised schedule based on the one or more retiming options, and wherein the user interface is configured to show the original schedule, the retiming options, and the revised schedule on the display, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “carrier waves on which the software is transmitted” (para. [0024]), “For example, let flights FL123 and FL124 (which were assigned to aircraft AC1045 and AC1089) in FIG. 10 are reported as delayed. Let it be assumed that the DHM suggests swapping aircraft AC1111 to resolve both the disruptions” (para. [0084]), “2. Pattern Assignment--This screen will let a user perform the pattern assignment. It will present the user with the current schedules” (para. [0096]), “6. Problem Resolution--This screen presents the set of solutions for each of the disruptions. Resolution Details--This screen presents the details of each of the solution” (para. [0112]), “8. Resolution Publishing/Acceptance--This screen facilitates a user to accept/reject the resolution” (para. [0114]). Transmitting instructions to the user interface, including transmissions regarding the current schedule, solutions for disruptions to the current schedule, and, following acceptance of the resolution, the (new) current schedule, to display all on the screen, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... operate the aircraft according to the selected one of the retiming options that is based on the plurality of tail assignments analyzed in real time.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Operating flights based on scheduling that results from accepting resolutions to disruptions, wherein the flights are based on data processed at computer computational speeds, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Shetty and Arguello (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Arguello”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Shetty:
“... automatically select a selected one of the retiming options based on a connecting flight and a connecting passenger, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty discloses, “After the tail assignment or resource allocation, the aircraft starts servicing schedules. Often the operations of airlines are subjected to disruptions, because of factors such as weather, airport restrictions, aircraft unavailability and a variety of other reasons. These disruptions can have a cascading effect, so that a disruption directly affecting one schedule results in another disruption affecting a different schedule. For example, a flight delay may result in passengers missing connections; crews missing their next duties; non-availability of this aircraft for subsequent flights; and many other events affecting the ability to accomplish a flight at a desired time” (para. [0004]), “Once a pattern is arrived, then a specific aircraft is assigned to that pattern. It is known as Tail Assignment (Resource Allocation). After the tail assignment, aircraft start servicing schedules. Often the operations of airline can be subjected to disruptions because of factors such as, weather, airport restrictions, aircraft unavailability and a variety of other reasons. These disruptions can have a cascading effect so that disruption at one location could result in another disruption at some other locations. For example an arrival flight delay could result in the passenger (on that flight) missing connections; crew missing their next duties; non-availability of this aircraft for subsequent flights” (para. [0029]), “Aircraft Problems Snag on Ground Swap with Spare, Swap with a Departing Flight different Flight, Hold Delay, Aircraft Availability Equipment problem in an Swap with Spare, Swap with a Departing Flight aircraft (MEL) different Flight Delay, Aircraft Availability” (TABLE 5), “Delay the connection flight” (TABLE 5), “Gate unavailability” (TABLE 5), “For example, let flights FL123 and FL124 (which were assigned to aircraft AC1045 and AC1089) in FIG. 10 are reported as delayed. Let it be assumed that the DHM suggests swapping aircraft AC1111 to resolve both the disruptions. If the user or system chooses to swap AC1111 with AC1045 (because of its high impact as explained in 3 and its suitability), automatically the suggestion to swap, AC1111 with AC1089 will be made unavailable to the user” (para. [0084]), “Once the decision is locked, accordingly the System State is updated at 370. For example, let us consider the example cited in step-6. If AC1111 is swapped with AC1089 (for FL123), then the tail assignment of AC1111 needs to be automatically changed/updated to reflect that of AC1045 for the rest of the period” (para. [0088]), “Flight Related Flight Cancellation Swap with Spare, Swap with a Aircraft Availability different Flight Arrival Flight Delay Swap with Spare, Swap with a Aircraft Availability, different Flight,” (TABLE 5), “Gate availability” (para. [0091]), “Gate is not available (Gate GAXXX at airport AXXXX is not available/will not be available between ZZ:zz:zz hrs and ZZ:zz:zz hrs)” (para. [0107]), “gate availability 755” (para. [0119]), “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of a domain model representing passenger connection resolution for restrictions” (para. [0121]), “Passenger connection resolution 850 has several resolutions available, and each resolution has an associated cost. These resolutions include passenger adjustment on a different flight for the same destination, which causes passenger delay 855. Passenger adjustment on tie-up affects flight on time 860 and passenger satisfaction 870, which are the system objectives. Passenger delay also affects passenger satisfaction, which is also assigned a cost. Further resolutions include holding the flight to accommodate passengers, which may involve departing flight delay 825. Passenger adjustment on a different flight for a different destination may involve providing alternative transportation to the original destination. Flights may also be arranged using a spare aircraft, which depends on aircraft availability 835. Passenger refunds due to flight cancellation, or rewards for agreeing to different flights directly affect cost, and passenger satisfaction 870. Arranging the flight with a swap has potential cascading effects with associated costs” and (para. [0122]), “Solutions to disruptions are provided to a tail assignment function 1560, and ultimately to a trip master 1565 for servicing” (para. [0143]). Arguello discloses, “FIG. 9 illustrates a more granular view of the example, non-limiting high-level diagram of unified operations of an aspect of the innovations where various influencers (e.g., demand forecasting, fleet schedule, route schedule, maintenance (Mx) planning, crew assignment, asset assignment, operations, crew, gate, maintenance, passenger, assets, etc.) are shown in accordance with one or more embodiments described herein” (col. 3), “The techniques and tools described herein can provide a holistic approach to airline operations planning and consider multiple aspects of airline operations (e.g., aircraft, stands, gates, airport curfews, flight deck crew, cabin crew, passenger travel plans, revenue, cost, weather impacts, past performance, etc.) with different time horizons” (para. [0010]), and “For example, if a group of passengers (e.g., passenger 938) are arriving late for a connecting flight, the holistic solution unified API 802 can configure the gate 934 to minimize the path between the gates for these passengers while considering costs and other operational factors” (para. [0042]). The system selecting a resolution from the set of possible resolutions, wherein the possible resolutions include scheduling (and rescheduling) in terms of connection flights and passenger connections, in Shetty, when modified to include consideration of group of connecting passengers, and connection flight gates, in Arguello, reads on the recited limitation.
“... reschedule a tail assignment of the plurality of tail assignments and the connecting passenger, and ...” - See the aspects of Shetty and Arguello that have been cited above. Rescheduling tail assignments for flights based on consideration of connecting passengers, connecting flights, gates, and other resolutions, in Shetty and Arguello, reads on the recited limitation.
Arguello discloses “Systems, computer-implemented methods and/or computer program products that facilitate airline operations and planning management” (abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handling of scheduling and rescheduling of connecting flights and passengers connections, of Shetty, to include consideration of passengers arriving late and gates, as in Arguello, to minimize disruptions while considering costs and other operational factors, per Arguello (para. [0042]).
The combination of Shetty, Arguello, and Kipersztok (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Shetty/Arguello:
The claimed “operate the aircraft” is performed “automatically” - Kipersztok discloses, “The present invention relates generally to diagnostic systems and methods, and more particularly to diagnostic systems and methods for enabling multistage decision optimization for aircraft preflight dispatch” (para. [0002]), “Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a diagnostic system, generally indicated by reference number 10” (para. [0019]), “During operation, the diagnostic system 10 determines the optimal maintenance action in accordance with the extended VOI diagnostic model (and the observed symptoms indicative of a failed component. Having the diagnostic system 10 determine the optimal maintenance action instead of aircraft personnel (e.g., mechanic, etc.) eliminates, or at least substantially reduces, the risk of exceeding cost functions, cost limits, time deadlines, MEL guidelines, among other variables associated with the preflight dispatch problem” (para. [0020]), “By way of example only, the bi-directional data link 18 through which the aircraft 16 and diagnostic system 10 communicate may be compatible with the current industry standard ACARS (Aircraft Condition and Reporting System). However, it should be noted that the present invention is not limited to any particular data linking system. Alternatively, the diagnostic system may comprise an autonomous system that is embedded on board the aircraft” (para. [0024]), and “It is anticipated that the invention will be applicable to any of a wide range of mobile platforms, and especially aircraft (e.g., but not limited to, fighter jets, commercial jets, private jets, propeller powered aircraft, among others) regardless of the manner in which the aircraft is piloted (e.g., directly, remotely, via automation, or in a combination thereof, among others)” (para. [0123]). Operation of the embedded autonomous system, and/or piloting of aircraft via automation, in Kipersztok, reads on the recited limitation.
Kipersztok discloses, a “diagnostic system and method for enabling multistage decision optimization in aircraft preflight dispatch” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty/Arguello. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the operation of aircraft, of Shetty/Arguello, to include piloting of aircraft via automation, as in Kipersztok, as it is one of many well-known and equivalent ways of piloting aircraft, and allows use over a wider range of mobile platforms, per Kipersztok (see para. [0123]).
Regarding claim 2, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically select the selected one of the retiming options, and revise the original schedule based on the selected one of the retiming options.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “3. The disruption handling mechanism (DSM)” (para. [0079]), and “The user is presented with all the decisions and their (economic) value against a disruption. The user can select a particular decision of his/her choice at 360. In some embodiments, the selection is made by the DHM” (para. [0083]). The DHM selecting the decision, leading to rescheduling aircraft flights based on the selection, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 2, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to automatically select the selected one of the retiming options based on one or more connecting flights of one or more connecting passengers.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “Often the operations of airline can be subjected to disruptions because of factors such as, weather, airport restrictions, aircraft unavailability and a variety of other reasons. These disruptions can have a cascading effect so that disruption at one location could result in some other locations. For example an arrival flight delay could result in the passenger (on that flight) missing connections” (para. [0071]). The DHM selecting the decision based on addressing the arrival flight delay resulting in the passenger missing the connection, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 2, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to automatically select the selected one of the retiming options based on a cost reduction in relation to the original schedule.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “5. Impact of Initial Problems--This screen will present the impact of the problems if left unattended in terms of a list of cascading disruptions. Problem impact details--Each disruption in that list will have cost/penalty associated with the same” (para. [0111]), and “the cost is computed for each resolution, and if any of the resolutions does not have cascading effects and its "total" cost is less (in comparison with others), simulating stopped, and that resolution is preferred” (para. [0132]). The DHM selecting the decision for rescheduling, based on the resolution having least (or at least less) total cost than the problem with the current schedule, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, further comprising a schedule database that stores the original schedule, wherein the scheduling control unit is in communication with the schedule database.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “ingesting the customer-supplied data in to the system's database 190” (para. [0065]), “A database 215 contains information about an airline, including airport restrictions, costs, crews, and assets” (para. [0068]), “The schedule is split day wise as shown at 1315 and stored in a database at 1320” (para. [0139]). The software framework including the database that stores the schedule, wherein the DHM is networked to databases, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tail assignments include one or more tail numbers associated with flight numbers.” - Shetty discloses, “Once the pattern assignment is over, the user selects the tail assignment function. If the patterns are not ready in the system, the system will advise the user that there are no available patterns. The tail assignment function displays a GNATT chart of the patterns and a set of available tail numbers. When the user requests the system to assign tail numbers, the pattern numbers in the GNATT chart are replaced by the tail numbers and the user is prompted to accept/reject the tail assignment. Alternately, the user can also assign a particular tail number with the pattern” (para. [0067]), and “flights FL123 and FL124 (which were assigned to aircraft AC1045 and AC1089)” (para. [0084]). The tail assignment AC1045 being associated with flight FL123, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to assign a different aircraft to one or more of the retiming options in response to an original aircraft being unavailable for the one or more of the retiming options.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “let flights FL123 and FL124 (which were assigned to aircraft AC1045 and AC1089) in FIG. 10 are reported as delayed. Let it be assumed that the DHM suggests swapping aircraft AC1111 to resolve both the disruptions” (para. [0084]), and “Several conclusions flow from the swap. Aircraft AC1045 has to fly FL125 after FL123. Aircraft AC1089 has to fly FL126 after FL124. Both FL123 and FL124 are delayed and hence FL125 and FL126 will be delayed. Aircraft AC1111 is available at this airport whose next flight if FL678. FL678's scheduled departure lies beyond the expected delayed arrival times of FL123 and FL124. The choice is to swap AC1111 with AC1045 or AC1089” (para. [0085]). The software framework for the DHM rescheduling by swapping an aircraft for another in connection with selecting the resolution, due to another aircraft being delayed and therefore unavailable under different (e.g., less preferable) resolution or the current schedule, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.” - Arguello discloses, “facilitating generation of models that utilize artificial intelligence or machine learning for scheduling and resource allocation” (para. [0002]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the software framework for the DHM, of Shetty, to include use of artificial intelligence or machine learning, as in Arguello, “to improve airline operations and planning management,” per Arguello (para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 12-16, 18, and 19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, 7, and 10, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-5, 7, and 10. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-5, 7, and 10 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-16, 18, and 19. Claims 12-16, 18, and 19 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok.
Regarding claim 21, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to discard the one or more of the retiming options if the one or more of the retiming options prevents the aircraft from a subsequent flight.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “disruptions can have a cascading effect so that disruption at one location could result in some other locations. For example an arrival flight delay could result in the passenger (on that flight) missing connections; crew missing their next duties; non availability of this aircraft for subsequent flights” (para. [0071]). Making decisions unavailable when they are not selected, because they do not adequately address aircraft being prevented from use in the subsequent flight (in contrast with the selected decision), in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 22, Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to discard the one or more of the retiming options if the one or more of the retiming options prevents another aircraft from flying a previously scheduled flight.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “disruptions can have a cascading effect so that disruption at one location could result in some other locations. For example an arrival flight delay could result in the passenger (on that flight) missing connections; crew missing their next duties; non availability of this aircraft for subsequent flights” (para. [0071]). Making decisions unavailable when they are not selected, because they do not adequately address aircraft being prevented from use in the subsequent flight (in contrast with the selected decision), in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 21 and 22, the claim recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 21 and 22. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 21 and 22 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 23 and 24. Claims 23 and 24 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok.
Regarding claim 25, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and to claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 25. Claim 25 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Shetty/Arguello/Kipersztok.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 8-16 of the Submission, the applicant request reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the applicant contends that the Office Action treats claimed steps as mental acts divorced from system context and operational constraints. (Submission, pp. 9 and 10.) The examiner disagrees with the contentions. Additional elements should not be considered at Step 2A, Prong One. When the additional elements are set aside (for later consideration at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B), the examiner looks at what is left and determines if that falls under the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The applicant appears to be arguing for consideration of additional elements in Step 2A, Prong One. This is improper because it goes against the framework outline in MPEP 2106. See, for example, how claim limitations are treated in the analysis of ineligible claim 2 of Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the applicant contends that the ordered combination of claim limitations goes beyond merely organizing information of presenting results, because it requires the system to apply the computed retiming and rescheduling decisions in an operational workflow that culminates in automatic operation of an aircraft according to the selected retiming option. (Submission, p. 11.) According to the applicant, the Office Action treats the aircraft and the automatic operation as mere field of use or technological environment, but that interpretation fails to account of the claim’s functional integration of the alleged abstract idea into real world action. (Submission, p. 11.) A claim integrates an exception into a practical application when it applies or uses the exception in a meaningful way that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception, and the analysis must consider how the additional elements interact with the exception in the claim as a whole rather than characterizing those elements as nominal without analysis of their role in the claimed solution. (Submission, pp. 11 and 12.) The applicant contends that the claim does not merely use a computer as a tool, and that the Office Action improperly isolates individual limitations and then analogizes them to generic automation and display scenarios without addressing the claim’s particular ordered combination of constraints and outputs. (Submission, p. 12.) Additional arguments on pp. 12 and 13 of the Submission are similar to those above.
The examiner disagrees with the contentions above. The rejection under 35 USC 101 considers all claim limitations individually and as a whole. It remains clear, from the examiner’s view, that the claim uses a generic, conventional computer (e.g., processor, memory, software, display) to receive and present aircraft scheduling information. Nothing about the steps performed goes beyond that. The claimed automatic operation of the aircraft according to output data is so broad and generic, that it indeed amounts to nothing more than field of use or technological environment. Virtually every aircraft operation that is not entirely manual is encompassed by the recited “automatically operate the aircraft according to” limitation.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the applicant makes contentions similar to the contentions and arguments above, or contentions so related, that the examiner’s remarks above are a sufficient rebuttal. For all of these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
On pp. 16-18 of the Submission, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. More specifically, the applicant contends that the cited references do not teach or suggest automatically selecting a retiming option based on both a connecting flight and a connecting passenger. The examiner disagrees with the contention. As explained in the 35 USC 103 section above, Shetty discloses, “The user is presented with all the decisions and their (economic) value against a disruption. The user can select a particular decision of his/her choice at 360. In some embodiments, the selection is made by the DHM” (para. [0083]), which reads on the automatic selecting of a retiming option. The retiming options being generated through taking connecting flights, connecting passengers, and the like, into account, per Shetty and Arguello, reads on using connecting flights and connecting passengers as a basis (or bases).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624