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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 11/24/2025; claims 1-20 are pending.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method / system / computer program for scheduling and monitoring of flight training (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
The limitation of steps: … accessing a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots; accessing flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights; identifying, for a first trainee, a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus; assigning the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria; wherein the defined scheduling criteria includes one or more of: location of the first trainee, or seniority of the first trainee; assigning one or more instructors to each flight of the first subset of one or more flights; and implementing a schedule with the first trainee and the one or more instructors as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a computer structure. The claimed method akin to mental process of a human for scheduling flights, assigning flights and instructor. The mere nominal recitation of one or more computer processors performing these steps does not take the claim limitation outside of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1: yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if a claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception. Alternatively, a claim that does not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application is directed to the exception. Evaluating whether a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application is performed by a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, and b) evaluating those additional elements individual and in combination to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have or has not been integrated into a practical application are set forth in the 2019 PEG
With respect to the instant claims, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of: a device; a processor (one or more computer processors) and a memory storage device. It is particularly noted that the use of processor "as a tool" to perform an abstract method are indicated in the 2019 PEG as examples that an additional element has not been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits, such as an improvement to a computing system, on practicing the abstract idea (STEP 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of: a processor (one or more computer processors) and a memory storage device set forth above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Regarding these limitations: Applicant's specification describes these features in generic manner "… the computing device 600 includes a CPU 605, memory 610, storage 615, a network interface 625, and one or more I/O interfaces 620. In the illustrated aspect, the CPU 605 retrieves and executes programming instructions stored in memory 610, as well as stores and retrieves application data residing in storage 615. The CPU 605 is generally representative of a single CPU and/or GPU, multiple CPUs and/or GPUs, a single CPU and/or GPU having multiple processing cores, and the like” in the Applicant’s specification, para. [0076]). There is no indication in the Specification that Applicants have achieved an advancement or improvement in computer for scheduling and assigning task. Dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through their dependencies and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claims to more than the claimed abstract idea, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garzella (US 2015/0066342 A1) in view of Pearse et al. (US 5,270,920).
Re claims 1, 8, 15:
Garzella teaches 1. A method (Garzella, Abstract; fig. 9), comprising:
accessing, by a device, a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots (Garzella, [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft, flight businesses that rent and/or charter aircraft to the public and flight clubs comprised of member pilots”; [0046]; [0023], “a flight event may have been dispatched for a flight lesson for a student pilot”; a flight lesson – a syllabus);
accessing, by the device, flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0046]);
identifying, by the device and for a first trainee, a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus (Garzella, fig. 3, 318 and 320; [0045]; [0016], “two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons)”);
assigning, by the device, by operation of one or more computer processors, the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”);
assigning, by the device, one or more instructors to each flight of the first subset of one or more flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0020], “instructor”); and
implementing, by the device, a schedule with the first trainee and the one or more instructors (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0039], “lesson may include an instructor who may evaluate the student pilot during the flight lesson”).
8. A system, comprising: a processor; a memory storage device including instructions that when executed by the processor enable performance of an operation (Garzella, Abstract; fig. 9) comprising:
accessing a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots (Garzella, [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft, flight businesses that rent and/or charter aircraft to the public and flight clubs comprised of member pilots”; [0046]; [0023], “a flight event may have been dispatched for a flight lesson for a student pilot”; a flight lesson – a syllabus);
accessing flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0046]);
identifying, for a first trainee, a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus (Garzella, fig. 3, 318 and 320; [0045]; [0016], “two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons)”);
assigning the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”);
assigning one or more instructors to each flight of the first subset of one or more flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0020], “instructor”); and
implementing a schedule with the first trainee and the one or more instructors (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0039], “lesson may include an instructor who may evaluate the student pilot during the flight lesson”).
15. A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation (Garzella, Abstract; fig. 9), the operation comprising:
accessing a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots (Garzella, [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft, flight businesses that rent and/or charter aircraft to the public and flight clubs comprised of member pilots”; [0046]; [0023], “a flight event may have been dispatched for a flight lesson for a student pilot”; a flight lesson – a syllabus);
accessing flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0015], “dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0046]);
identifying, for a first trainee, a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus (Garzella, fig. 3, 318 and 320; [0045]; [0016], “two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons)”);
assigning the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”);
assigning one or more instructors to each flight of the first subset of one or more flights (Garzella, fig. 3; [0020], “instructor”); and
implementing a schedule with the first trainee and the one or more instructors (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”; [0039], “lesson may include an instructor who may evaluate the student pilot during the flight lesson”).
Garzella does not explicitly disclose
wherein the defined scheduling criteria includes one or more of: location of the first trainee, or seniority of the first trainee
Pearse et al. (US 5,270,920) teaches a scheduling system and method for use with training systems. The exemplary embodiment of the scheduler is incorporated into an aircrew training system for a military aircraft. A training system for training aircrews involves the use of academic media such as classrooms, training devices such as ground-based flight simulation trainers, and training flights in the air (Pearse, Abstract). Pearse teaches assigning the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria, wherein the defined scheduling criteria includes one or more of: location of the first trainee, or seniority of the first trainee (Pearse, col. 1, line 59 – col. 2, line 7, “The scheduler also comprises means for adjusting the master plan so that users may adjust starting … users preferred scheduling constraints which reserves specific dates, times, locations and resources for each training event to fulfill scheduled training requests”; col. 4, lines 6 – 49, “Upon user request, the scheduler generates a master schedule 25 which reserves specific dates, times, locations and resources for each event as necessary to fulfill the training requests. The workshift calendar, scheduling parameters, training requests 22 and master plan 23 are used to constrain and guide the scheduling process. Upon user request, the scheduler publishes a master calendar 26 and schedules per course, crew, student, instructor, resource and event”). Therefore, in view of Pearse, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/system/computer program product described in Pearse, by providing the location constraints as taught by Pearse, since it was known in the art to provide scheduling constraints (i.e., dates, times, locations) personalized to the trainee and instructor. For example, Pearse suggests the invention provides for a scheduler and scheduling method that is flexible in that it is capable of dynamically rescheduling users and resources in order to adjust for conflicts that arise (Pearse, col. 22 - 26).
Re claims 2, 9, 16:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the syllabus comprises a sequence of events for flight training for pilots (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”), and
each respective event in the sequence of events comprises respective flight information describing a respective flight that trainee pilots must complete during training (Garzella, [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”).
9. The system of claim 8, wherein: the syllabus comprises a sequence of events for flight training for pilots, and each respective event in the sequence of events comprises respective flight information describing a respective flight that trainee pilots must complete during training (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”).
16. The computer program product of claim 15, wherein: the syllabus comprises a sequence of events for flight training for pilots, and each respective event in the sequence of events comprises respective flight information describing a respective flight that trainee pilots must complete during training (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”).
Re claims 3, 10, 17:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights comprises:
selecting a first flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a first event in the sequence of events; assigning the first trainee to the first flight (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”);
selecting a second flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a second event in the sequence of events, wherein the second flight is subsequent to the first flight; and assigning the first trainee to the second flight (Garzella, [0016], “flight event may result in two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons), a user may have to check-in the original flight event (e.g., check-in the original flight event for the first flight lesson), and then create an additional flight event ( e.g., the second flight lesson), and reenter the check-out information from the original flight event prior to checking-in the additional flight event (e.g., second flight lesson)”; [0018], “When checking-in a second flight event, the flight management system can copy information from the first flight event and then use the information to create the second flight event, which the user may then check-in at that time”; [0023], “add a second flight event that may be associated with the flight event which was dispatched and that the user then checked-in”).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights comprises:
selecting a first flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a first event in the sequence of events; assigning the first trainee to the first flight (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”);
selecting a second flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a second event in the sequence of events, wherein the second flight is subsequent to the first flight; and assigning the first trainee to the second flight (Garzella, [0016], “flight event may result in two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons), a user may have to check-in the original flight event (e.g., check-in the original flight event for the first flight lesson), and then create an additional flight event ( e.g., the second flight lesson), and reenter the check-out information from the original flight event prior to checking-in the additional flight event (e.g., second flight lesson)”; [0018], “When checking-in a second flight event, the flight management system can copy information from the first flight event and then use the information to create the second flight event, which the user may then check-in at that time”; [0023], “add a second flight event that may be associated with the flight event which was dispatched and that the user then checked-in”).
17. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights comprises:
selecting a first flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a first event in the sequence of events; assigning the first trainee to the first flight (Garzella, [0014], “scheduling, dispatching and checking-in one or more flight events using a flight management system”; [0015], “checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps”; [0031], “a user may have an option to create one or more flight events … perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson”; [0037], “each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria”);
selecting a second flight, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on a second event in the sequence of events, wherein the second flight is subsequent to the first flight; and assigning the first trainee to the second flight (Garzella, [0016], “flight event may result in two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons), a user may have to check-in the original flight event (e.g., check-in the original flight event for the first flight lesson), and then create an additional flight event ( e.g., the second flight lesson), and reenter the check-out information from the original flight event prior to checking-in the additional flight event (e.g., second flight lesson)”; [0018], “When checking-in a second flight event, the flight management system can copy information from the first flight event and then use the information to create the second flight event, which the user may then check-in at that time”; [0023], “add a second flight event that may be associated with the flight event which was dispatched and that the user then checked-in”).
Re claims 4, 11:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the defined scheduling criteria indicates to minimize time between flights in the first subset of one or more flights. 11. The system of claim 8, wherein the defined scheduling criteria indicates to minimize time between flights in the first subset of one or more flights (Garzella, fig. 3, 318, 320, 324, 326; Abstract, “When checking-in a first flight event, a second flight event can be checked-in and a master flight record can be created for the second flight event” Garzella allows a user to set the schedule of first and second flight; hence, a user may set the schedules for first and second flight close to each other; second flight can be checked in as soon as first flight checked in).
Re claims 5, 12, 18:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising, subsequent to assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights:
identifying, for a second trainee, a second set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus (Garzella, [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft”; [0026], “accessed by a number of users, each of which may be assigned one or more roles and one or more profiles”; [0031], “a second student may have conducted another flight simulation … Rather than perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson for the second student and then check-out and check-in the flight simulation lesson”; [0059], “the flight event schedule can be shared with a number of users and/or linked with other schedules or calendars so that others viewing the schedules or calendars may see that a block of time may be unavailable to schedule a flight event”); and
assigning the second trainee to a second subset of one or more flights, from the second set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft”; [0026], “accessed by a number of users, each of which may be assigned one or more roles and one or more profiles”; [0031], “a second student may have conducted another flight simulation … Rather than perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson for the second student and then check-out and check-in the flight simulation lesson”; [0059], “the flight event schedule can be shared with a number of users and/or linked with other schedules or calendars so that others viewing the schedules or calendars may see that a block of time may be unavailable to schedule a flight event”).
12. The system of claim 8, the operation further comprising, subsequent to assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights: identifying, for a second trainee, a second set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus; and assigning the second trainee to a second subset of one or more flights, from the second set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft”; [0026], “accessed by a number of users, each of which may be assigned one or more roles and one or more profiles”; [0031], “a second student may have conducted another flight simulation … Rather than perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson for the second student and then check-out and check-in the flight simulation lesson”; [0059], “the flight event schedule can be shared with a number of users and/or linked with other schedules or calendars so that others viewing the schedules or calendars may see that a block of time may be unavailable to schedule a flight event”).
18. The computer program product of claim 15, the operation further comprising, subsequent to assigning the first trainee to the first subset of one or more flights: identifying, for a second trainee, a second set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus; and assigning the second trainee to a second subset of one or more flights, from the second set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria (Garzella, [0014], “flight schools that teach students to operate various aircraft”; [0026], “accessed by a number of users, each of which may be assigned one or more roles and one or more profiles”; [0031], “a second student may have conducted another flight simulation … Rather than perform the steps of scheduling another flight simulation lesson for the second student and then check-out and check-in the flight simulation lesson”; [0059], “the flight event schedule can be shared with a number of users and/or linked with other schedules or calendars so that others viewing the schedules or calendars may see that a block of time may be unavailable to schedule a flight event”).
Re claims 6, 13, 19:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: tagging each respective flight in the first subset of one or more flights based on the syllabus. 13. The system of claim 8, the operation further comprising: tagging each respective flight in the first subset of one or more flights based on the syllabus. 19. The computer program product of claim 15, the operation further comprising: tagging each respective flight in the first subset of one or more flights based on the syllabus (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”).
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garzella (US 2015/0066342 A1) and Pearse et al. (US 5,270,920) as applied to claims 6, 13 and 19 above, and further in view of Curci (US 2019/0156447 A1)
Re claims 7, 14, 20:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein assigning the one or more instructors comprises, for each respective flight of the first subset of one or more flights (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”): identifying a respective tag associated with a respective flight (Garzella, fig. 3, 314 - “Aircraft” type, “instructor” “Flight Rule Type”, “Flight Minutes”; [0015], ‘dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information”).
Garzella teaches a plurality of instructors (Garzella, [0033], “a flight management system 200 that contains user roles 206 for pilots, instructors”). Garzella does not explicitly disclose a plurality of instructor alternatives based on the respective tag.
Curci teaches a system and method for logging flight durations and noting potential issues with aircraft (Curci, Abstract). Curci teaches identifying a respective set of instructor alternatives, from a plurality of instructor alternatives, based on the respective tag; and assigning a respective instructor, from the respective set of instructor alternatives, to the respective flight. 14. The system of claim 13, wherein assigning the one or more instructors comprises, for each respective flight of the first subset of one or more flights: identifying a respective tag associated with a respective flight; identifying a respective set of instructor alternatives, from a plurality of instructor alternatives, based on the respective tag; and assigning a respective instructor, from the respective set of instructor alternatives, to the respective flight. 20. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein assigning the one or more instructors comprises, for each respective flight of the first subset of one or more flights: identifying a respective tag associated with a respective flight; identifying a respective set of instructor alternatives, from a plurality of instructor alternatives, based on the respective tag; and assigning a respective instructor, from the respective set of instructor alternatives, to the respective flight (Curci, pg. 4, claim 1, “the flight student selecting a Certified Flight Instructor from a list of available Certified Flight Instructors from the secured server database for the time selected by the flight student upon selection of the option to request a flight lesson”; [0045] – [0047], “Resource Schedule: [0047] The administrator of each resource provides the resource's availability via the mobile device application (10) of the present invention, and may update the availability of the resource(s) easily from via the interface (20)”). Therefore, in view of Curci, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method, system and computer program described in Garzella, by matching instructors to the student, in order to allow a student to select a Certified Flight Instructor from a list of available Certified Flight Instructors from the secured server database for the time selected by the flight student upon selection of the option to request a flight lesson (Curci, pg. 4, claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims themselves do not recite a mental process, at least because claim I recites a variety of nonhuman activities including "accessing, by a device, a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots," "accessing, by the device, flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights," "identifying, by the device and for a first trainee, a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus," "assigning, by the device and by operation of one or more computer processors, the first trainee to a first subset of one or more flights, from the first set of flight alternatives, based on defined scheduling criteria, wherein the defined scheduling criteria includes one or more of: location of the first trainee, or seniority of the first trainee," "assigning, by the device, one or more instructors to each flight of the first subset of one or more flights," and "implementing, by the device, a schedule with the first trainee and the one or more instructors." (Emphasis added).
Even assuming arguendo steps require a device, Applicant does not provide reasoning or evidence, and the Examiner does not see from the claim, how the limitations requiring the use of generic computer components provide a technological solution to a computer-based problem. Instead, the advance is only at the abstract level of computerization. See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324 (finding that the asserted claims drawn to a computerized loan application process could all be performed by a human and thus were abstract). Furthermore, Applicant's solution to the time-consuming nature of accessing a syllabus indicating flight training requirements for pilots; accessing flight information for a plurality of scheduled flights; identifying a first set of flight alternatives, from the plurality of scheduled flights, based on the syllabus; and assigning first alaternative and instructor to each flight, and implementing a schedule as claimed, is to have a computer receive the information and process it, as noted. "[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea." See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("'[C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer' [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible .... " (citation omitted)); Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.").
Applicant argues the present application's invention clearly improves upon conventional functioning and claim I reflects the specification's disclosed improvement in technology.
All claim elements, with the exception of the recited by a device (claim 1); a processor, a memory storage device (claim 8); and computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium (claim 15), correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis. The specificity of an abstract idea, alone, is not a basis for finding that a claim recites an improvement to the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 ("respondent incorrectly assumes that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of §101."). In other words, the alleged specificity of the claim, standing alone, is insufficient to confer patent eligibility. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Cf. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88-89 (noting that "cases have not distinguished among different laws of nature according to whether or not the principles they embody are sufficiently narrow") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (holding narrow mathematical formula unpatentable)).
The question here is whether the claims as a whole "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, Applicant's claim(s) is distinguished from those claims that court decision has found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system because claim employs generic elements, such as, "device” and other computer structures to implement the abstract idea without any improvement to the computer system itself. Stated differently, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the “device” and “computer” represent generic elements.
Applicant argues that the specification states that existing technological processes were unable to provide a system that didn't require substantial monitoring and oversight. The specification states in [0022] that "In conventional systems, these training sequences are defined and monitored manually, requiring substantial oversight and effort. As a result, certifying a pilot for a new aircraft generally consumes substantial time and frequent error."
Aside from the recitation of computer structures (device, computer ... etc.) being an insignificant pre-solution activity, it was known in the art for an office secretary or a personal assistant to perform the claimed tasks. The additional limitations to be performed by a computer structure amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and/ or a technological environment and/ or field of use to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). None of the claimed steps require any type of complexity; the amount of data; nor put any time constraints on the scheduling tasks. A human can perform the steps and analysis in his/her mind by using pen and paper, even though it takes longer compare to a computer program.
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 JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715