Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 03/12/2021 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 06/12/2026. Amending claims 1, 11, and 21.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 06/12/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 12-13 of the remarks): abstract idea
schedule generator of a computer system cannot operate on a legal authorization. It can only operate on data. The claims recite identifying, modeling, swapping, and computing deviations from slots. These are operations on numeric time values and aircraft-type data, not on legal entitlements. The Action has conflated an improper interpretation of "slots" with what the claimed computer system actually processes.
…
None of these operations are mental steps. Generating an output flight schedule through mathematical optimization over a portfolio of slot data as described in the application is not a concept a person could perform mentally. Therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Independent Claims 1, similar steps likewise reflect in claims 11 and 21, the claims, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea.
The Applicant's Specification titled " AIRCRAFT FLEET ASSIGNMENT WITH SLOT CONSTRAINTS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives" (Spec. [0001]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 21 are recites the abstract idea of generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Also, Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes. which pertain to "concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)" expressly categorized under Mental Processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 14-15 of the remarks): prong two
The December 5, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Memorandum incorporating Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential), into MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), is controlling. Under Desjardins, a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application under the improvements consideration when the specification identifies a specific improvement to how the model itself operates, and at least one claim limitation reflects that improvement.
…
The amended claims also recite that the schedule generator automatically sends flight information comprising an updated flight time for the flight as generated by the model from the computer system to a client computer over the network in response to a request from a user. SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019), held that a multi-device distributed network architecture, where devices analyze data and report results over a network, constitutes an improvement to computer network technology. The claimed system similarly requires the schedule generator on the computer system to transmit model generated updated flight times to a separate client computer over a network; this is a specific multi-device network operation integral to the claimed system, not mere field-of-use language. Therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a computer system, a flight scheduling system, a computer program product a schedule generator, a client computer, data storage system and a network and a computer readable storage medium are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component to “generate an out flight schedule” does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The additional elements of a “model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Applicant argues (Pages 15-16 of the remarks): step 2B
The slot-deviation weighting encodes airport-specific difficulty directly into the optimization objective, so the model prioritizes changes most likely to be approved by coordinators. The same-airport swap constraint enables a portfolio view of slots unavailable with prior per-flight approaches. The automated feedback loop with the external coordinator replaces a manual, iterative negotiation process with a machine-driven cycle. The automatic transmission of model-generated updated flight times to a client computer ties the computation directly to the downstream operational systems that consume it. Together, these elements transform a generic computer into a special-purpose scheduling system. The Action analyzed individual hardware components in isolation and never addressed the non-conventional arrangement of the claimed combination as a whole.
The art previously made of record further confirms that the limitations are not conventional. The closest references, Weber (US 2016/0371988), Jiang (US 2020/0357293), Hegde (US 2021/0035028), and Hansman (US 2019/0317489), do not teach the weighted slot-deviation objective function with same-airport swapping and automated coordinator feedback. The absence of this combination confirms the combination supplies the required inventive concept. Therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, examiner point out with regard to applicant argument above that did not identify any reference that discloses the overall combination recited in the independent claims. This argument is not persuasive because the test under Alice is not a matter of evidence but rather a test of law, the nonobviousness or novelty of those limitations would not provide an indication that those limitations are 'something more'. In other words, nonobviousness or novelty is not an indicia of eligibility - it is not an indicia that limitations provide "something more.
Second, The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 11 and 21 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 11 and 21 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a computer system, a flight scheduling system, a computer program product a schedule generator, a client computer, data storage system and a network and a computer readable storage medium.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 11-15, and 17-20 are directed to a system (machine) and Claims 21-22 are directed to a computer program product. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Examiner Note: regarding claim 21 a computer program product, the computer program product, the specification discloses in ¶[119], “a computer program product, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se”.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 11, and 21 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for managing slots, the method comprising:
identifying, by a schedule generator of a computer system, the slots allocated to an airline;
creating, by the schedule generator of the computer system, a model that describes a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints, the model comprising an objective function and the constraints;
wherein the objective function comprises a weighted slot deviation between the slots allocated to the airline and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints, and
wherein the schedule generator configured to swap the slots between flights at a same airport such that increased alignment of the slots with the flights occur; and
generating, by the schedule generator of the computer system, an output flight schedule using the model to obtain a maximization or minimization of a set of objectives to obtain an extrema using the set of objectives, wherein the flights are aligned to the slots in the output flight schedule;
storing, by the schedule generator of the computer system, the output flight schedule as a final flight schedule in a datastore in a data storage system accessible over a network; and
automatically sending, by the schedule generator of the computer system, flight information for a flight from the final flight schedule from the computer system to a client computer over the network in response to a request from a user for information about the flight in the final flight schedule, wherein the flight information comprises an updated flight time for the flight as generated by the model; and
at least one of landing the flight or taking off the flight,
wherein the client computer is coupled to a slot coordinator authority outside the airline, wherein the flight information comprises a request comprising at least one slot change, and wherein the slot coordinator authority receives the request and return a response comprising an acceptance comprising at least one approved slot change for a flight taking or landing at a same airport, and in response to the response the schedule generator repeats creating the model and generating the output flight schedule using the slots allocated to the airline as changed,
wherein the model comprises an objective function and the constraints,
wherein the objective function comprises a weighted slot deviation between the slots allocated to the airline and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints matching flights to slots comprising adjusting, by the schedule generator of the computer system, flight times based on type of aircraft and aircraft of a similar weight and performance, and
wherein the weighted slot deviation models an expected difficulty in modifying slots at different airports at different times.
The Applicant's Specification titled " AIRCRAFT FLEET ASSIGNMENT WITH SLOT CONSTRAINTS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives" (Spec. [0001]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 21 are recites the abstract idea of generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Also, Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes. which pertain to "concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opionion)" expressly categorized under Mental Processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20 and 22 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claim 12) adjusting, by the computer system, a number of the flights in the output flight schedule, wherein the output flight schedule with adjustments to the number of the flights becomes the input flight schedule to perform another iteration in response to the output flight schedule being unacceptable; and
repeating, by the computer system, the creating the model, generating the output flight schedule, and adjusting the output flight schedule the number of the flights until the output flight schedule is acceptable.
claim 3 (Similarly Claim 13) adjusting, by the computer system, the set of objectives in response to the output flight schedule being unacceptable; and
repeating, by the computer system, the creating the model, generating the output flight schedule, and adjusting the set of objectives until the output flight schedule is acceptable.
claim 4 (Similarly Claim 14) identifying, by the computer system, a set of slot changes in response to the output flight schedule being acceptable;
repeating, by the computer system, the creating and generating steps.
claim 5 (Similarly Claim 15) wherein the model swaps the slots between the flights such that increased alignment of the slots with the flights occurs.
claim 6 (Similarly Claim 16) Cancelled
claim 7 (Similarly Claim 17) wherein the constraints comprise at least one of an aircraft fleet, a buffer time between the flights, use of available aircraft, or available slots.
claim 8 (Similarly Claims 18 and 22) wherein the weighted slot deviation models an expected difficulty in modifying slots at different airports at different times.
claim 9 (Similarly Claim 19) wherein the model is a mixed integer linear programming model.
claim 10 (Similarly Claim 20) wherein the output flight schedule is generated using a branch and bound optimization process.
claim 23 Cancelled.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 11 and 21.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 11 and 21 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1.
A computing system, a schedule generator, a model, a client computer, data storage system and a network.
Claim 11. A flight scheduling system, a model, a computer system a schedule generator, a client computer, data storage system and a network.
Claim 21 A computer program product, a model, a computer readable storage medium, a computer system a schedule generator, a client computer, data storage system and a network.
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 11 and 21 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computer system, a flight scheduling system, a computer program product a schedule generator, a model, a client computer, data storage system and a network and a computer readable storage medium which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 10). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 (Similarly claims 11 and 21) as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives, determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives, determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20 and 22-22 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 21 respectively, for example claims 9, and 19 recite a mixed integer linear programming but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 21, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 11 and 21 include a computer system, a model, a flight scheduling system, a computer program product a schedule generator, a client computer, data storage system and a network and a computer readable storage medium. claims 9, and 19 a mixed integer linear programming. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating an output flight schedule using the model to obtain an extrema using a set of objectives, determining a relationship between flights for an input flight schedule and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
The closest prior art of record are Weber et al. US 2016/0371988: Authority issued slot assignment optimization, Jiang et al. US 2020/0357293: Method and apparatus for outputting information, Hegde et al. US 2021/0035028: Systems and methods for automatically allocating airside slots using shared ledger databases, Hansman et al. US 2019/0317489: Aircraft fuel efficiency tunnel display for pilots and dispatchers. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “the model comprising an objective function and the constraints; wherein the objective function comprises a weighted slot deviation between the slots allocated to the airline and the slots that have been allocated subject to constraints, and wherein the schedule generator configured to swap the slots between flights at a same airport such that increased alignment of the slots with the flights occur; and generating, by the schedule generator of the computer system, an output flight schedule using the model to obtain a maximization or minimization of a set of objectives … and in response to the response the schedule generator repeats creating the model and generating the output flight schedule using the slots allocated to the airline as changed ”. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu, Wenjing, Qiuhong Zhao, and Daniel Delahaye. "Research on slot allocation for airport network in the presence of uncertainty." Journal of Air Transport Management 104 (2022): 102269.
S. Wang, J. H. Drake, J. Fairbrother and J. R. Woodward, "A Constructive Heuristic Approach for Single Airport Slot Allocation Problems," 2019 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), Xiamen, China, 2019, pp. 1171-1178, doi: 10.1109/SSCI44817.2019.9002892.
Liao Hongwei EP 3038022: System and method for rule-based analytics of temporal-spatial constraints on noisy data for commercial airline flight operations.
Moon et al. US 2023/0132271: Method and apparatus for scheduling of aircraft flight.
Bollapragada et al. US 2022/0230108: Methods and systems for generating holistic airline schedule recovery solutions accounting for operations, crew, and passengers.
Glatfelter et al. US 2021/0240772: Method and system for flight scheduling.
Hedge et al. US 2021/0035028: Systems and methods for automatically allocating airside slots using shared ledger databases.
Petersen et al. US 2015/0221225: System and method for managing aircraft ground operations.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights