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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-4, 7, 10-15, 18, 19, and 21-26 of the Reply of 02 July 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-15, 18, 19, and 21-26 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).) The “system” of claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22, and 26 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, the “method” of claims 12-15, 18, 19, 23, and 24 constitutes a process under the statute, and the “system” of independent claim 25 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7, 10-15, 18, 19, and 21-26 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 independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“... storing an original scheduling including a plurality of tail assignments; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... analyze the plurality of tail assignments ... to determine, for at least one tail assignment, a plurality of discrete retiming options comprising copies of the at least one tail assignment and having modified departure times and arrival times that differ from original times within the original schedule, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determine, for each retiming option of the plurality of discrete retiming options, whether the retiming option reduces an operational cost relative to the original schedule based on at least one of fuel cost, aircraft assignment, or passenger connections, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... discard, from the plurality of discrete retiming options, one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options that fail to reduce the operational cost, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... in response to determining that a retiming option reduces the operational cost, discard, from the plurality of discrete retiming options, the retiming option when the retiming option causes fewer than a connection threshold of connecting passengers to complete a subsequent flight or prevents execution of a subsequent tail assignment, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... output ... information regarding the original schedule, the plurality of discrete retiming options, and a revised schedule based on the one or more retiming options, and ... show the original schedule, the plurality of discrete 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 plurality of discrete 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
“... revise the original schedule based on the selected retiming option, including rescheduling at least one of a tail assignment or the connecting passenger, ...” - 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 plurality of discrete retiming options that is based on the plurality of tail assignments analyzed ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity
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: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including between airline schedulers and passengers, which falls 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 observation (e.g., the recited “storing” and “output” steps), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “analyze,” “determine,” “discard,” “discard,” “select,” “revise,” and “operate ... according to” 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 independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
“A system comprising: an aircraft; a schedule database ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
“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 and the schedule database, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “analyze” is performed “from the schedule database 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 claimed “show” involves “wherein the user interface is configured to” and is “on the display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “select” takes place “automatically” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “operate” takes place “automatically” and “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent 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, 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 a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); 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, 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, 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, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22, and 26, the claims depend from independent 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 limitations similar to the abstract idea limitations of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea limitations of claim 1 (e.g., the “select the selected one of the plurality of discrete retiming options, and revise the original schedule based on the selected one of the plurality of discrete retiming options” of claim 2, the “select the selected one of the plurality of discrete 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 plurality of discrete retiming options based on a cost reduction in relation to the original schedule” of claim 4, the “wherein the plurality of tail assignments includes one or more tail numbers associated with flight numbers” of claim 7, the “assign a different aircraft to one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options in response to an original aircraft being unavailable for the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options” of claim 10, the “discard the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options if the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options prevents the aircraft from the subsequent flight” of claim 21, the “discard the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options if the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options prevents another aircraft from flying a previously scheduled flight” of claim 22, and the “wherein the plurality of tail assignments comprises over a thousand tail assignments” of claim 26). 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 ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to automatically” of claim 2, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to automatically” of claim 3, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to automatically” of claim 4, the “system” of claim 7, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is further configured to” of claim 10, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system” of claim 11, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to” of claim 21, the “system ..., wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to” of claim 22, and the “system” of claim 26). Accordingly, claims 2-4, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22, and 26 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 12-15, 18, 19, 23, and 24, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-4, 7, 10, 21, and 22, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-4, 7, 10, 21, and 22. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-4, 7, 10, 21, and 22 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-15, 18, 19, 23, and 24. Claims 12-15, 18, 19, 23, and 24 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding independent claim 25, while the claim is of different scope relative to at least claims 1, 2, 12, and 13, the claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of at least claims 1, 2, 12, and 13. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1, 2, 12, and 13 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 1-4, 7, 10, 12-15, 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 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0211069 A1 to Chaubey et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Chaubey”), further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0230549 A1 to Bollapragada et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Bollapragada”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0111197 A1 to Kipersztok et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kipersztok”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shetty discloses the following limitations:
“A system comprising: ...” - Shetty discloses, “A scheduling system” (Abstract).
“... an aircraft; ...” - Shetty discloses, “aircraft” (para. [0013]).
“... a schedule database storing an original schedule including a plurality of tail assignments; ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been mentioned above. Shetty also discloses, “As an airline will have a limited number of aircraft (fleet) at its disposal, it will not be possible to allocate an aircraft specifically to cater for a schedule. Therefore, an airline would like to use the same aircraft for different schedules by rotating that aircraft among schedules. For example, an aircraft identified as A001 is assigned to service schedule flight number 9W3511. After finishing its journey by reaching Cochin at 7.50 a.m. it can be used for flight 9W3512 starting from Cochin at 8.20 a.m. reaching Bangalore at 9.40 a.m. Subsequently the same aircraft can be used to cater for flight 9W3513. Hence, aircraft A001 is rotated among flights 9W3511, 9W3512, and 9W3513. This rotation is referred to as a pattern for an aircraft. The patterns help optimize aircraft utilization” (para. [0028]), “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” (para. [0029]), “For the first version of the tool, it is assumed that the data required for pattern/tail assignment is available in the system. This is accomplished through ingesting the customer-supplied data in to the system's database 190” (para. [0065]), “FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing functional modules of a disruption handing system generally at 210. The modules are performed by processor 110 with human interaction as desired. A database 215 contains information about an airline, including airport restrictions, costs, crews, and assets” (para. [0068]), “2. Pattern Assignment--This screen will let a user perform the pattern assignment. It will present the user with the current schedules and allows the user to modify the schedules. It can also present a list of redundant flights from the existing schedules as observed by the system” (para. [0096]), “3. Tail assignment--This screen will have the patterns and the available tails numbers (aircraft). It will allow a user to modify the aircraft characteristics. It will assign independent tail numbers to patterns and allows a user to assign a specific tail number to a pattern” (para. [0097]), “In FIG. 11A, disruptions are handled and entered into the database at 1102. Details of the flight are obtained, and expected arrival time and departure times are obtained at transition block 1104. A time window, or time frame, is calculated at transition 1110 as t1 and t2. t1 is the original departure time minus ground time, and t2 is the expected arrival time plus the ground time required. Given the time frame, potential flights satisfying the time frame are identified at transition 1115” (para. [0136]). The system’s database for ingesting customer-supplied data, including data about patterns, schedules, and tail assignments, wherein the schedules include existing ones, or ones with original departure times and other data, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... 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 and the schedule database, wherein the scheduling control unit is configured to: ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. Shetty also 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 and the system’s database, to perform described functions, in Shetty, reads on the recited limitation.
“... analyze the plurality of tail assignments from the schedule database in real time to determine, for at least one tail assignment, a plurality of discrete retiming options comprising copies of the at least one tail assignment and having modified departure times and arrival times that differ from original times within the original schedule, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. discloses, “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. The tail assignment will be one of the inputs to disruption management tool” (para. [0067]), “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]), “3. Tail assignment--This screen will have the patterns and the available tails numbers (aircraft). It will allow a user to modify the aircraft characteristics. It will assign independent tail numbers to patterns and allows a user to assign a specific tail number to a pattern” (para. [0097]), “4. Initial Problem Set (disruptions either presented to the user or user need to enter the disruptions)--This screen presents the user with a pre-configured list of events that would qualify as a disruption” (para. [0098]), “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]), “9. External Data (in real time)--This screen allows a user to send the data in real time” (para. [0115]), “FIG. 9 illustrates a disruption X with two potential solutions A and B” (para. [0123]), and “At transition 1150, a user, or the system makes a decision, selecting one of the solutions, which may or may not involve swapping flights. The cost information is provided to the user to facilitate the decision. The decision is communicated to a transition 1155 that changes the arrival times of aircraft in accordance with the decision, and to a multi-swap transition 1160 that selectively increases the time window by adding a standard ground time of 30 minutes. If at 1155, dt<at0+ground time, then (fn0,acode,ato-at) is passed on to update flight numbers and delay times for 1104. The time window may also be increased in an iteration if no compatible flights are found. FIG. 12 is a data flow diagram illustrating the flow of data when the possibility of rerouting is encountered, and the generation of a list of options for rerouting of schedules. Disruption information 1205 and flight timings 1210 are provided as flight details 1215. Timings of the flights 1220 are provided to 1225, where other compatible flights are obtained. The flight numbers 1230 are fed to determine seat availability at 1235, which also receives the disruption information 1205. Flights having seat availability are provided 1240 to a route check 1245, which also receives air traffic control checks 1246, airport numbers 1247 and weather information 848. The results of the route check are provided for rerouting and updating of schedules at 1250. From 1250, flight numbers and timings 1260 are provided to 1225 where other compatible flights are obtained” (para. [0138]). Analyzing existing tail assignments from the system’s database, wherein such external data is real time data, to determine, for the tail assignments, distinct potential solutions to disruptions, involving modifying or updating schedules so flights have different timing than previously scheduled, 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 plurality of discrete 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 plurality of discrete 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, different 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.
The combination of Shetty and Chaubey (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Chaubey”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1:
“... determine, for each retiming option of the plurality of discrete retiming options, whether the retiming option reduces an operational cost relative to the original schedule based on at least one of fuel cost, aircraft assignment, or passenger connections, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. Shetty also discloses, “At 440, costs of the solutions are determined. Each resource has a fixed cost and a variable cost depending on the type of resource. The cost may change for different times. Gate availability cost may be different in a different time window. The costs for each of the activities are computed, and then summed over all the activities to be performed. The costs of cascading effects due to the solution are also added. The cost is provided to block 450, which compares the costs of the solutions and selects an optimum solution based on the resources used and the time window chosen. An output 460 provides a solution and related cost, or alternatively a set of solutions and their costs” (para. [0091]), and “In one embodiment, 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]). While Shetty discloses comparing costs of scheduling associated with different solutions, Shetty does not appear to disclose comparing those costs to original scheduling costs. Chaubey discloses, “providing cost data for a flight” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty. Further, Chaubey also discloses, “The method (i) obtains cost target data for the flight, under anticipated conditions; (ii) obtains real-time aircraft performance parameters affecting the actual cost of the flight, using continuous monitoring during the flight, including at least aircraft speed modes, aircraft flight level changes, tactical interventions, weather impact, and descent timing deviations; (iii) determines an actual cost of the flight, based on the real-time aircraft performance parameters affecting the actual cost; (iv) identifies flight plan change options associated with a potential cost savings over the actual cost” (Abstract), “The subject matter presented herein relates to systems and methods for dynamically monitoring the actual cost data for a particular flight and providing alternative flight plan options for cost savings, to include cost recovery, when the actual cost exceeds cost projections for the flight. More specifically, the subject matter relates to using current and historic aircraft parameter data, and current and historic flight cost data, to dynamically create and update an analytical model of the flight and costs associated with the flight, in real-time during the flight. The real-time model is then used to continuously calculate (i) the cost of the current flight when flown according to the current flight plan, and (ii) costs associated with potential modifications to the current flight plan. Also contemplated herein is the identification and presentation of cost savings options during flight, the cost savings options including a subset of the potential modifications costing less than the current flight when flown according to the current flight plan” (para. [0018]), “The one or more server systems 110 may store and provide any type of data used to compute flight plan alternatives for fuel cost recovery when the actual cost of a flight exceeds a cost target for the flight” (para. [0027]), and “When the process 400 receives a user input selection of one of the flight plan change options (the “Yes” branch of 412), then the process 400 adapts operation of one or more avionics systems onboard the aircraft, based on the one of the flight plan change options (step 416) that has been selected by the user. Here, one of the flight plan change options is designated for implementation, via a user input selection. However, in some embodiments (not shown), the one of the flight plan options is designated for implementation via an automatic analysis and selection performed by the process 400. For example, the process 400 may identify and select the lowest-cost option of a plurality of flight plan change options. As another example, the process 400 may identify and select a flight plan change option that includes the lowest quantity of required pilot actions. As a third example, the process 400 may automatically select a flight plan change option associated with a cost that is lower than a predefined threshold, or associated with a cost savings or cost recovery amount that is above a predefined threshold. In other embodiments, the process 400 may present a plurality of flight plan change options meeting predefined cost criteria, receive a user input selection of one of the flight plan change options, and adapt operation of one or more avionics systems onboard the aircraft to accommodate the user input selection” (para. [0050]). In conjunction with determining of costs associated with the different resolutions and associated schedules, in Shetty, determining whether cost savings options, in the form of flight plan change options, cost less than current flight plans based at least on fuel costs, in Chaubey, reads on the recited limitation. 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 scheduling cost considerations, of Shetty, to include comparing costs of flight plan changes to the costs of current flight plans, to facilitate cost recovery, per Chaubey (see para. [0021]). Further, the modification constitutes use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
“... discard, from the plurality of discrete retiming options, one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options that fail to reduce the operational cost, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty and Chaubey that have been cited 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]). Chaubey also discloses, “The cost associated with each flight plan change option may be higher or lower than the originally projected cost target for the flight. A cost target for the flight is a planned and budgeted monetary price to fly the aircraft from the departure location to the arrival location. In other words, the cost target is the anticipated cost of the flight from an origin point to a destination point. When a first flight plan change option costs less than the original cost target for the flight, then the first flight plan change option indicates a cost savings or a cost recovery. The flight crew may select a flight plan change option that is lower than planned flight costs to lower and/or recover some of the cost for the flight” (para. [0038]). 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, wherein the decisions include choosing flight plan change options that provide cost savings or cost recovery, instead of flight plan change options that result in higher costs, as in Chaubey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, as set forth above, also apply here.
“... automatically select a selected one of the plurality of discrete retiming options based on a connecting flight and a connecting passenger, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty and Chaubey that have been cited above. Shetty also discloses, “Delay the connection flight” (para. [0072], TABLE 5), “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” (para. [0122]), and “Solutions to disruptions are provided to a tail assignment function 1560, and ultimately to a trip master 1565 for servicing” (para. [0143]). While Shetty also discloses various automatic functions (see, e.g., paras. [0054] and [0088]), Shetty does not appear to disclose automatic selection. Chaubey is similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty for the reasons specified above. Chaubey also discloses, “Here, one of the flight plan change options is designated for implementation, via a user input selection. However, in some embodiments (not shown), the one of the flight plan options is designated for implementation via an automatic analysis and selection performed by the process 400. For example, the process 400 may identify and select the lowest-cost option of a plurality of flight plan change options. As another example, the process 400 may identify and select a flight plan change option that includes the lowest quantity of required pilot actions. As a third example, the process 400 may automatically select a flight plan change option associated with a cost that is lower than a predefined threshold, or associated with a cost savings or cost recovery amount that is above a predefined threshold” (para. [0050]). The selecting of resolutions that affect timing of flights, based on connecting flights for connecting passengers, in Shetty, when performed automatically, per Chaubey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the references, as stated above, also apply here. Further, the modification constitutes use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)). Further, the modification amounts to merely automating a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04(III)).
“... revise the original schedule based on the selected retiming option, including rescheduling at least one of a tail assignment or the connecting passenger, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. Shifting from an established flight plan or schedule to a solution that modifies the schedule to deal with disruptions, wherein flights are swapped, delayed, or cancelled, and connecting passengers are directed, in Shetty (see paras. [0122] and [0133]), reads on the recited limitation.
“... operate the aircraft according to the selected one of the plurality of discrete retiming options that is based on the plurality of tail assignments analyzed in real time.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. Operating flights based on scheduling that results from accepting one or more different 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, Chaubey, and Bollapragada (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1:
“... in response to determining that a retiming option reduces the operations cost, discard, from the plurality of discrete retiming options, the retiming option when the retiming option causes fewer than a connection threshold of connecting passengers to complete a subsequent flight or prevents execution of a subsequent tail assignment, ...” - See the aspects of Shetty and Chaubey that have been cited above. Shetty also discloses, “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” (para. [0122]). While Shetty discloses that costs associated with resolutions include flight cancellation costs, Shetty does not appear to disclose selecting or discarding resolutions to prevent flight cancellations. Chaubey does not address the deficiency. Bollapragada discloses “generating a recovery scheduling solution in response to a scheduling disruption” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty/Chaubey. Bollapragada also discloses, “One more benefit may include generating a faster and more accurate airline recovery scheduling solution because the embodiments disclosed herein limit a number of iterations to search for a best version of an airline scheduling recovery solution based on a least number of flight cancellations and the least amount of delays for each delayed flight. Another benefit may include providing a passenger recovery solution that ensures that passengers are not delayed more than necessary in making their connecting flights, which in turn is a cost benefit because passengers are not missing as many connecting flights and needing to be rerouted to different flights” (para. [0022]), “At block 140, the disruption management module 24 may iteratively generate one or more subsequent flight and crew recovery solutions based on the iteratively generated recommendations and determine a best recovery solution for the airline recovery scheduling solution. The best recovery solution may include a crew recovery solution along with a corresponding flight recovery solution having rescheduled flights with the least amount of delays for one or more delayed flights and the least amount of flight cancellations over an iteration period. The iteration period may include a predetermined start time for the beginning of an optimization process until a predetermined end time for ending the optimization process has been reached or a maximum iteration value has been reached” (para. [0063]), and “At block 150, the disruption management module 24 may transmit the airline recovery scheduling solution to the airline scheduling module 22, one or more airports 14 and/or one or more aircrafts 12” (para. [0064]). In response to determining that the costs of resolutions are considered, as in Shetty, such that the flight plan change options, that are identified as having lower costs than existing flight plans, are selected, as in Chaubey, and solutions that result in less flight cancellations are favored for selection (instead of discarding), as in Bollapragada, reads on the recited limitation. 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 resolutions and change options, of Shetty/Chaubey, to favor selection of those resulting in fewer flight cancellations, as in Bollapragada, as cancelling flights creates problems due to refunds and maintaining customer satisfaction, per Shetty (see para. [0122]), and flight cancellation considerations are one way to generate faster and more accurate airline recovery scheduling solutions, per Bollapragada (see para. [0022]). Additionally, the modification constitutes use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143(I)).
The combination of Shetty, Chaubey, Bollapragada, and Kipersztok (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada /Kipersztok”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1:
The claimed “operate the aircraft” is performed “automatically” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited above. While Shetty discloses operation of aircraft, Shetty does not appear to disclose that operation is automatic. Kipersztok discloses “multistage decision optimization in aircraft preflight dispatch” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty. Kipersztok also discloses, “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. 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/Chaubey/Bollapragada, 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]). Also, the modification amounts to automating a manual activity (see MPEP 2144.04(III), use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete retiming options, and revise the original schedule based on the selected one of the plurality of discrete retiming options.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited 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. See also the distinct (discrete) solutions pathways depicted in FIG. 9 of Shetty.
Regarding claim 3, Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete retiming options based on one or more connecting flights of one or more connecting passengers.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited 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/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete 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 7, Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/Kipersztok teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tail assignments includes 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/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete retiming options in response to an original aircraft being unavailable for the one or more of the plurality of discrete 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 claims 12-15, 18, and 19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-4, 7, and 10, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-4, 7, and 10. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-4, 7, and 10 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-15, 18, and 19. Claims 12-15, 18, and 19 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/Kipersztok.
Regarding claim 21, Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete retiming options if the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options prevents the aircraft from a subsequent flight.” - See the aspects of Shetty that have been cited 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/Chaubey/Bollapragada/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 plurality of discrete retiming options if the one or more of the plurality of discrete retiming options prevents another aircraft from flying the 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/Chaubey/Bollapragada/Kipersztok.
Regarding independent claim 25, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and to claims 12, 13, and 15, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 15. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, and 15 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 25. Claim 25 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/Kipersztok.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty, in view of Chaubey, further in view of Bollapragada, further in view of Kipersztok, and further in view of EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 3 444 763 A1 to Arguello et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Arguello”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shetty, Chaubey, Bollapragada, Kipersztok, and Arguello teaches the following limitations:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the scheduling control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.” - Shetty does not appear to disclose or suggest use of AI or ML. Arguello discloses facilitating airline operations and planning management (see Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shetty. Arguello also discloses, “facilitating generation of models that utilize artificial intelligence or machine learning for scheduling and resource allocation” (para. [0002]). Using the AI or ML of Arguello, in the scheduling system of Shetty, reads on the recited limitation. 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]). Additionally, the modification amounts to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and/or applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty, in view of Chaubey, further in view of Bollapragada, further in view of Kipersztok, and further in view of American Airlines. “American Airlines Group Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2019 Profit.” American Airlines Newsroom, 23 January 2020 (last accessed on 03 November 2025 at https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2020/American-Airlines-Group-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2019-Profit-CORP-FI/default.aspx) (hereinafter referred to as “American Airlines”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Shetty, Chaubey, Bollapragada, Kipersztok, and American Airlines (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty/Chaubey/Bollapragada/Kipersztok/American Airlines” teaches the following limitations.
“The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tail assignments comprises over a thousand tail assignments.” - Shetty does not appear to disclose the number of tail assignments. The “American Airlines offers customers 6,800 daily flights to more than 365 destinations in 61 countries from its hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Washington, D.C.” aspect (p. 5), of American Airlines, reads on the recited limitation. Additionally, the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” rationale, of Duplication of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), also reads on the recited limitation. American Airlines discloses an airline and flights (see p. 5), 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 recognized that the number of tail assignments and flights, in Shetty, could almost seven thousand per day, as in American Airlines, for profitability, as taught by American Airlines (see p. 1). Additionally, the Duplication of Parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)) bolsters the obviousness of the recited limitation and combination of Shetty and American Airlines.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 10-13 of the Reply, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant argues that claimed operations are not practically performed mentally. (See Reply at pp. 11 and 12.) According to the applicant, the claims require computer-implemented processing of large operational datasets. (See id. at p. 12.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Only claim 26 requires a specified dataset size. Even with claim 26, a thousand tail assignments can be mentally processed if given enough time, or rather quickly using multiple minds. Even if dataset size moves a limitation out of mental processes territory, then the limitation is an additional element that is insufficient for eligibility, like accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
The applicant also argue that the claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application, citing reasoning from Ex parte Desjardins. (See Reply at p. 12.) According to the applicant, the claims provide a technological improvement, and establish a technological solution to a technological problem. (See id. at p. 12.) The applicant characterizes this as improving operation of airline scheduling systems and aircraft-dispatch systems. (See id. at p. 13.) The applicant also asserts that the claims are tied to specific technological components. (See id. at p. 13.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Improving airline scheduling is not a technological improvement, because airline scheduling can be performed with or without use of technology. Airline scheduling, or any other machine scheduling, can be performed mentally with the assistance of pen and paper. Similarly, problems or challenges faced in the realm of airline scheduling are not necessarily technological problems, especially where any technology involved in a claimed process for airline scheduling amounts to generic, conventional computer componentry. Regarding the assertion of a technological improvement, a rebuttal has already been presented above.
On pp. 13-16 of the Reply, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. The applicant argues that neither Shetty, Arguello, nor Kipersztok discloses, teaches, or suggests determining discrete retiming-option copies of a tail assignment and then determining and filtering potential future costs of the different tail assignments. (See Reply at p. 14.) The applicant also argues that the references do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed second-stage filtering process in response to determining that a retiming option reduces the operational cost. (See id. at p. 15.) The applicant also argues that the references do not disclose, teach, or suggest discrete retiming options of copies of tail assignments, and the like. (See id. at p. 15.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. In response to some of the arguments, the arguments are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Instead, they rely on newly-cited references (see Chaubey and Bollapragada, as explained in the 35 USC 103 section above). Chaubey discloses, teaches, or suggests the newly-added cost limitations. Also, at least FIGS. 9 and 10 of Shetty provide an example of discrete retiming options (see FIG. 9) that involve copies of tail assignments (see FIG. 10). In other words, resolutions like the one in FIG. 10 of Shetty, when included as one of multiple possible resolutions like those in FIG. 9 of Shetty, read on the claim limitations at issue.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights