DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
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 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
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 07/30/2026.
Claim 1, 3, 9, 10-12-13, 16, and 18-20fa.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 in the previous office action have been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 in the previous office action have been maintained.
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 1-10 are directed towards a system. Claims 10-19 are directed towards a method. Claim 20 is directed towards a computer-readable storage medium, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including unifying a database Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 20) are directed to managing user experience, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A system comprising:
receive scheduling rules for trips and resource data input into the user interface, wherein the scheduling rules comprise rule definitions;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial or legal interactions such as agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of user interface, control unit, processor, (additional elements recited at: Claim 11, user interface, control unit, processor; Claims 20 computer-readable storage medium, user interface, control unit, processor). The claim recite the steps are performed by the processor, control unit, user interface.
The limitations of
a user interface;
one or more control units including one or more processors, wherein the one or more control units is configured to:
analyze the scheduling rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions;
refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options violate the various resource constraints to improve computing time of the one or more processors; and
automatically assign the crew members within the schedule options to the trips of one or more vehicles to form one or more rosters for the crew members.
are mere data gathering and processing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by user interface, control unit, processor. The user interface, control unit, processor are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), user interface, control unit, processor are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The user interface, control unit, processor are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the user interface, control unit, processor. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and processing.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
a user interface;
one or more control units including one or more processors, wherein the one or more control units is configured to:
analyze the scheduling rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions;
refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options violate the various resource constraints to improve computing time of the one or more processors; and
automatically assign the crew members within the schedule options to the trips of one or more vehicles to form one or more rosters for the crew members.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to retrieving and transmitting data are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a database, device, GUI to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite control units for managing crew data; claims 10, 19 recite user interface, control unit, and display for managing rosters data. The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 recites user interface, control unit, processor which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-10 and 12-19 recites user interface, control unit, processor, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Therefore claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication US 20080215408, Pachon, et al. to hereinafter Pachon in view of United States Patent Number US 8700438, Heinold.
Referring to Claim 1, Pachon teaches a system comprising:
a user interface; one or more control units including one or more processors, wherein the one or more control units is configured to (
Pachon: Sec. 0037, The planning and scheduling module 118 provides user interface functions for viewing and editing airline resource schedules, such as the schedules and assignments between scheduled flights, airplanes, and flight crews. This module 118 includes, for example, crew planning functions that comprise long-term staffing of flight crews, crew scheduling functions that comprise the production of pairing (discussed below) and flight crew rosters.
Pachon: Sec. 0121, of a fully integrated operations solution 900, shown in FIG. 9A, includes various software modules and other computing resources as previously described
Pachon: Sec. 0139, The system 1000 includes a processor 1010, a memory 1020, a storage device 1030, and an input/output device 1040. Each of the components 1010, 1020, 1030, and 1040 are interconnected using a system bus 1050. The processor 1010 is capable of processing instructions for execution within the system 1000. In one implementation, the processor 1010 is a single-threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor 1010 is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 1010 is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory 1020 or on the storage device 1030 to display graphical information for a user interface on the input/output device 1040.
Pachon: Sec. 0143, A computer program can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment.):
receive scheduling rules and resource data input into the user interface (
Pachon: Sec. 0007, receiving user input committing the set of one or more proposed changes, and in response, updating the schedule of resources for the airline operation to include the set of one or more proposed changes.
Pachon: Sec. 0015, the method may further include receiving user input committing the proposed change, and in response, updating the schedule of resources for the airline operation to include the proposed change.
Pachon: Sec. 0132, This may pose a scheduling problem, which would be identified by the aircraft tracking manager. The aircraft tracking manager module may then provide input information to the aircraft recovery optimizer 926, as shown in FIG. 9B. );
analyze the scheduling rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules (
Pachon: Sec. 0127, The routing optimizer 923 also enables crew planners to generate pairings for combined international and domestic schedules, automatically enforcing both sets of rules and allowing specification of additional global constraints.
Pachon: Sec. 0134, airline operations computing system described in the present application, there is provided an embedded solver technology where the solver is transparent to users.);
Pachon describes analyzes the scheduling rules and recognize the various resource constraints that are part of the scheduling rules which is equivalent to the Applicant specs at 0042.
by parsing the rule definitions (See Heinold) to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions (
Pachon: Sec. 0007, and if any of the plurality of predefined rules is violated, providing a responsive display indicating that the change violates one or more of the predefined rules. The method further includes receiving user input committing the set of one or more proposed changes, and in response, updating the schedule of resources for the airline operation to include the set of one or more proposed changes.
Pachon: Sec. 0083, The rules warnings may include, for example, information that describes various ways in which elements of a flight schedule may violate airline scheduling rules (e.g., airline policies, regulatory agency rules, union rules). Steps 316 through 322 represent preexisting rules violations that exist before the present user has made any changes to the schedule.).
Pachon: Claim 5, receiving user input committing the proposed change, and in response, updating the schedule of resources for the airline operation to include the proposed change.);
Pachon teaches that responding/displaying founded constraints, which is equivalent to Applicant spec at 0056 and 0071, then combine with Heinold , that describes the scheduling in a transportation environment, which includes the analyzing and defining of schedule rules.
for crew members in which the schedule options (
Pachon: Sec. 0060, The rules module 144 performs functions that determine whether various airline operational rules have been violated. Examples of these rules-checking functions may include determining if a schedule will cause a pilot to fly more hours than is allowed by law or by policy, determining if a flight crew member assigned to a flight is qualified to work on the type of airplane that is assigned to the flight, determining if a proposed schedule provides insufficient time between flights for a flight crew member to move between airplanes, determining whether a schedule will cause an airplane to exceed a limit on the number of flight hours between maintenance operations, or other various rules and policies that may affect flights and flight resources. For example, if a pairing causes an aircraft to fly in excess of an allowable number of hours between service checks, the module 144 may detect this rule violation.
Pachon: Sec. 0060, The rules module 144 performs functions that determine whether various airline operational rules have been violated. Examples of these rules-checking functions may include determining if a schedule will cause a pilot to fly more hours than is allowed by law or by policy, determining if a flight crew member assigned to a flight is qualified to work on the type of airplane that is assigned to the flight, determining if a proposed schedule provides insufficient time between flights for a flight crew member to move between airplanes, determining whether a schedule will cause an airplane to exceed a limit on the number of flight hours between maintenance operations, or other various rules and policies that may affect flights and flight resources. For example, if a pairing causes an aircraft to fly in excess of an allowable number of hours between service checks, the module 144 may detect this rule violation.
Pachon: Sec. 0114, a user may navigate a pointing device to location 720 and enter a right click operation on the pointing device to provide a display of options, one of which may be a “split” operation. As such, the pairing L2015 may be split at that selected point. Such a “split” operation would produce the user interface display 700 shown in FIG. 7B. As shown there, the first pairing L2015 (numbered 705) includes only one of the two original series, namely, the first series 710, and a new pairing 725 (not yet numbered) is created that is made up of the second series)
Pachon describes the stopping and providing of scheduling options for a crew based on determined violations.
and automatically assign the crew members within the schedule options to the trips of one or more vehicles to form one or more rosters for the crew members (
Pachon: Sec. 0010, Computer program products are also provided to carry out the above described methods of revising a schedule of resources for an airline or other similar operation. Such computer program products are tangibly embodied in computer storage medium and comprise instructions that when executed by a processor cause operations to be performed that carry out the above-described methods to revise a schedule of resources for an airline operation.
Pachon: Sec. 0010, Such computer program products are tangibly embodied in computer storage medium and comprise instructions that when executed by a processor cause operations to be performed that carry out the above-described methods used in accomplishing revisions to a schedule of resources for an airline operation in a system in which multiple different users are permitted to access and make changes to the schedule of resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0103, requests for schedule data may be made in response to user interaction with the client applications 502 and 504 (e.g., the user scrolls to a new date in the Gantt chart), or automatically (e.g., on a timer, by a polling process).
Pachon: Sec. 0126, For scheduling crew there is a pairing manager software application 922 and a software application 922, called a bidline manager, that manages bids from crewmembers for specific flights and duties. In addition, there is a pairing optimizer 923 and a bidline optimizer 924.
Pachon: Sec. 0127, The pairing optimizer 923 automatically creates the lowest-cost set of crew pairings for flights operated within a specified timeframe. This fast, flexible optimizer 923 may incorporate user-controlled parameters that include a wide variety of both “hard” crew rules and “soft” crew quality-of-life elements. The routing optimizer 923 also enables crew planners to generate pairings for combined international and domestic schedules, automatically enforcing both sets of rules and allowing specification of additional global constraints. ).
Pachon does explicitly teach wherein the scheduling rules comprise rule definitions; refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options that violate the various resource constraints to improve computing time of the one or more processors.
However,
wherein the scheduling rules comprise rule definitions (
Heinold: Col. 4 Ln. 23-36, The parameters also include constraints relating to the transportation resources, routing and allocation thereof, and schedule design. In general, the constraints define rules and preferences based on which a schedule is generated. For example, the constraints can define the number of transportation resources by type, station data (e.g., gates, curfews, market size), travel times between each station pair, and turnaround times for each station (i.e., allowed lengths of stopovers at each station).);
Heinold describes the scheduling in a transportation environment, which includes the defining of schedule rules, in which the Examiner is interpreting as scheduling rules comprise rule definitions.
refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options (See Pachon) violate the various resource constraints (
Heinold: Col. 1. Ln. 49-67, A constraint propagation algorithm is executed to eliminate invalid schedule options based on a first set of constraints in a network of transportation resources. By eliminating invalid schedule options, the constraint propagation algorithm generates a reduced set of schedule options. A backtracking constraint programming algorithm and the reduced set of schedule options are used to generate one or more proposed schedules. The backtracking algorithm is operable to select particular schedule options from the reduced set of schedule options based on a second set of constraints.);
to improve computing time of the one or more processors (
Heinold: Col. 22. Ln. 35-65, Multiple iterations of mathematical programming processing can be performed to incrementally improve the schedule, with each iteration using the replacement schedule from the previous iteration as the new seed schedule. The constraint programming techniques alone or in combination with the mathematical programming techniques can be used to predict the effect of changes in parameters, such as reducing the number of planes, adding flights and/or aircraft, increasing the number of gates at a station, and the like.)
Pachon and Heinold are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Heinold at Col. 3. Ln. 1-20, Col. 4). Pachon discloses that additional elements such as the common rules engine should be considered (See Pachon at 0131). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pachon, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling problems in view of Marais, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling of aviation resources to improving the managing of constraints for generating schedules. (See Heinold at Col. 7 Ln. 50-67, Col. 18 Ln. 40-67).
Referring to Claim 2, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control units is further configured to automatically reconfigure one or more of the trips in response to determining one or more conflicts between the one or more of the trips and availability of the crew members for the one or more of the trips (
Pachon: Sec. 0072, airline schedules may be planned to comply with various rules...By storing the specific values of rule parameters separately from the computer code that defines the rules, the rules may be adjusted without requiring edits to the computer code of the rules engine 144. In some implementations, rules may be edited by using a computer implemented method and user interface.
Pachon: Sec. 0127, The routing optimizer 923 also enables crew planners to generate pairings for combined international and domestic schedules, automatically enforcing both sets of rules and allowing specification of additional global constraints…create schedules that meet desired trip attributes. The bidline optimizer 924 may build both bidline-holder and reserve bidline schedules to meet minimum guarantee levels. Once a bidline is committed, crew planners may directly input the bidline into the crew bidding system without additional configuration.
Pachon: Sec. 0135, As shown in FIG. 9C, a paradigm offered by some implementations of the airline operations computing system described in this document is a tracking system with embedded solver technology where the solver is transparent to the users. The system will be able to simply confirm the proffered solution, or potentially, allow the system to automatically correct certain types of problems
Pachon: Sec. 0137, If the rule is not one that is preconfigured to be one that cannot be corrected automatically, then at step 975 a determined solution is proposed for user approval. If at step 980, user approval is provided, then processing proceeds to step 985 where the solution (that is, change to the schedule) is committed. If the user indicates disapproval, then processing proceeds back to step 975 where the system (solver) determines another solution and proposes that to the user.
Pachon: Sec. 0138, If at step 970 on the other hand the rule being violated is one that is preconfigured to be automatically correctable, then processing proceeds directly to step 985 where the solution (change in schedule) is committed). In this situation, a user need not be in the process of solving the rule violation and implementing the solution. Rather, it is fixed automatically.).
Referring to Claim 3, Pachon teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the one or more control units is configured to automatically reconfigure the one or more of the trips by reconfiguring the one or more of the trips into a plurality of sub-trips (
Pachon: Fig. 4A-C, 6H
Pachon: Sec. 0128, For crew on the day of operations, there is a crew tracking manager software application 929 and accompanying crew recovery optimizer 930. In addition, there is a trip trades application 932 that enables and manages trades between crewmembers of trips, and a crewnet application 933 that may be an online interactive medium that allows crew to participate in schedule bidding, view their work schedules and receive crew administration messages via the Internet.).
Referring to Claim 4, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the trips includes a plurality of legs spanning a plurality of days (
Pachon: Fig. 4A-C, 6A-J, 7A-C).
Referring to Claim 5, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the trips are anonymous before the one or more control units automatically assign the crew members (
Pachon: Sec. 0125, it assigns individual flights into anonymous lines of flying to minimize the number of lines required to operate the schedule while maximizing route consistency. For further optimization, the routing optimizer 921 may integrate with a pairing optimizer 923, discussed below, to generate easily crew schedules that follow aircraft routings.).
Referring to Claim 6, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more rosters comprise a plurality of rosters (
Pachon: Sec. 0037, This module 118 includes, for example, crew planning functions that comprise long-term staffing of flight crews, crew scheduling functions that comprise the production of pairing (discussed below) and flight crew rosters.
Pachon: Sec. 0054, Some of these modules include a planning module 138 (for long-term staffing of flight crews), a scheduling module 140 (for the production of pairings and rosters), day-of-operations module 142 (for day of operations management and recovery functions), a rules module 144, a pairing module 146, and a rostering module 148.
Pachon: Sec. 0058, Airline scheduling may include, for example, the production of pairings and rosters, and the scheduling module 140 may build the pairings and build the rosters.).
Referring to Claim 7, Pachon teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the one or more control units is further configured to determine a preferred roster among the plurality of rosters (
Pachon: Sec. 0058, Airline scheduling may include, for example, the production of pairings and rosters, and the scheduling module 140 may build the pairings and build the rosters.
Pachon: Sec. 0124, Another optimizer for planning 908 and for crew 906 is a resource optimizer 918, and a resource manager software application 919 may be used for crew planning. In addition, the resource optimizer 918 may include a roster optimizer (not shown) that generates equitable and highly productive crew rosters that cover all the flights in the roster period while taking into account pre-assigned crew activities. In addition to parameters in the integrated rules engine 914, crew planners can input lower and upper bounds and penalties to control the amount of block time, duty time and pay allowances desired in the rosters. The roster optimizer may use this information to calculate an optimized solution.
Pachon: Sec. 0062, The rostering module 148 provides functions that generate and manage crew rosters. For example, the rostering module 148 may help users determine work schedules according to various fairness criteria, such as by crew preferences, by seniority, or by other factors that may be used to generate crew rosters. In some implementations, rostering functionality may be included in the scheduling module 140.
Pachon: Sec. 0127, the bidline optimizer 924, there may be a personal, or preferential, bidding system (PBS) optimizer 931 that takes into account crew preferences and the like.).
Referring to Claim 8, Pachon teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more control units is further configured to automatically select the preferred roster (
Pachon: Sec. 0062, The rostering module 148 provides functions that generate and manage crew rosters. For example, the rostering module 148 may help users determine work schedules according to various fairness criteria, such as by crew preferences, by seniority, or by other factors that may be used to generate crew rosters. In some implementations, rostering functionality may be included in the scheduling module 140.
Pachon: Sec. 0127, The pairing optimizer 923 automatically creates the lowest-cost set of crew pairings for flights operated within a specified timeframe. This fast, flexible optimizer 923 may incorporate user-controlled parameters that include a wide variety of both “hard” crew rules and “soft” crew quality-of-life elements. The routing optimizer 923 also enables crew planners to generate pairings for combined international and domestic schedules, automatically enforcing both sets of rules and allowing specification of additional global constraints. The bidline optimizer 924 develops generic bidlines for each period that are ready for the crew bidding process..the bidline optimizer 924, there may be a personal, or preferential, bidding system (PBS) optimizer 931 that takes into account crew preferences and the like.
Pachon: Sec. 0138, If at step 970 on the other hand the rule being violated is one that is preconfigured to be automatically correctable, then processing proceeds directly to step 985 where the solution (change in schedule) is committed). In this situation, a user need not be in the process of solving the rule violation and implementing the solution. Rather, it is fixed automatically.).
Referring to Claim 9, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control units is further configured to automatically determine one or more of the trips (
Pachon: Sec. 0127, The pairing optimizer 923 automatically creates the lowest-cost set of crew pairings for flights operated within a specified timeframe. This fast, flexible optimizer 923 may incorporate user-controlled parameters that include a wide variety of both “hard” crew rules and “soft” crew quality-of-life elements. The routing optimizer 923 also enables crew planners to generate pairings for combined international and domestic schedules, automatically enforcing both sets of rules and allowing specification of additional global constraints. The bidline optimizer 924 develops generic bidlines for each period that are ready for the crew bidding process. It incorporates multiple flexible parameters to accommodate seniority-based environments and create schedules that meet desired trip attributes. The bidline optimizer 924 may build both bidline-holder and reserve bidline schedules to meet minimum guarantee levels. Once a bidline is committed, crew planners may directly input the bidline into the crew bidding system without additional configuration. In addition or alternative to the bidline optimizer 924, there may be a personal, or preferential, bidding system (PBS) optimizer 931 that takes into account crew preferences and the like.).
Referring to Claim 10, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising the user interface having a display, wherein the user interface is in communication with the one or more control units, and wherein the one or more control units is further configured to update the one or more rosters on the display (
Pachon: Fig. 4A-C, 6A-J, 7A-C
Pachon: Sec. 0038, The planning and scheduling module 118 presents a user interface that may be used to display flight pairings, and to fill or make changes to such pairings.
Pachon: Sec. 0113, FIG. 7A is a screen snapshot of a user interface display 700 of a single pairing 705, pairing number L2015. In that the “flight coverage” tab 707 at the bottom of the user interface is selected, the display 700 shows a list of pairings, although in the FIG. 7A display on one pairing is listed. As shown in the Gantt chart display area, the pairing 705 includes a first series 710 of flights and a second series 715 of flight (the latter being a single flight).).
Claims 11-19 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claims 1 -10.
Claim 20 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claims 1 and 2. Regarding a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause one or more control units comprising a processor (
Pachon: Sec. 0010, Such computer program products are tangibly embodied in computer storage medium and comprise instructions that when executed by a processor cause operations to be performed that carry out the above-described methods to revise a schedule of resources for an airline operation.
Pachon: Sec. 0017, Such computer program products are tangibly embodied in computer storage medium and comprise instructions that when executed by a processor cause operations to be performed that carry out the above-described methods used in accomplishing revisions to a schedule of resources for an airline operation in a system in which multiple different users are permitted to access and make changes to the schedule of resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0140, In one implementation, the memory 1020 is a computer-readable medium. In one implementation, the memory 1020 is a volatile memory unit. In another implementation, the memory 1020 is a non-volatile memory unit.
Pachon: Sec. 0141, The storage device 1030 is capable of providing mass storage for the system 1000. In one implementation, the storage device 1030 is a computer-readable medium.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 02/05/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 6-12 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
A system comprising:
a user interface;
one or more control units including one or more processors, wherein the one or more control units is configured to:
receive scheduling rules for trips and resource data input into the user interface, wherein the scheduling rules comprise rule definitions;
analyze the scheduling rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions;
refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options violate the various resource constraints to improve computing time of the one or more processors; and
automatically assign the crew members within the schedule options to the trips of one or more vehicles to form one or more rosters for the crew members.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of crew, which constitutes methods related to commercial or legal interactions such as agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; business relations which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The control unit are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 8 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps of:
Pg. 7 “Instead, the claim recites a particular computer-implemented technique for converting formal rule definitions into machine-usable resource constraint expressions and applying those constraint expressions as a pruning mechanism to avoid generation of invalid schedule options, expressly to improve computing time”.
Pg. 8 “Those limitations are the operative mechanism by which the claimed system reduces computational workload, namely by pruning invalid schedule options before they are generated, and the specification explains that this avoids the trial and error approach of generating massive permutations that are later rejected, thereby conserving computing time and power.”
Pg. 8 “That approach fails to engage with the claim's specific practical effect, which is achieved through the concrete operational sequence of transforming rule definitions into constraint expressions and using those expressions to prevent generation of violating schedule options, a computer-centric technique that reduces computation by eliminating invalid paths from the search space.”
and arguments at pg. 8 seems to describe a “particular way” of managing of the scheduling of crew resources. The Applicant is basically relying on the thee steps as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but these steps aren't really utilized in any particular manner for improving system software or any type of computer or structure. Furthermore, the Applicant is admitting that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience for avoiding the generation of invalid schedule options, which is just the processing of data and does not “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” or “an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Then, regarding
Pg. 8 “Those limitations are the operative mechanism by which the claimed system reduces computational workload, namely by pruning invalid schedule options before they are generated, and the specification explains that this avoids the trial and error approach of generating massive permutations that are later rejected, thereby conserving computing time and power.”
Pg. 8 “That approach fails to engage with the claim's specific practical effect, which is achieved through the concrete operational sequence of transforming rule definitions into constraint expressions and using those expressions to prevent generation of violating schedule options, a computer-centric technique that reduces computation by eliminating invalid paths from the search space.”
The Applicant arguments seem to be addressing something that is not explained in the specs or claims of how and when the improving of computer time and power is executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement. Additionally, the Applicant is arguing the aspirational statement, but has yet to explain, how this is technically happening, with support from the spec or claims, see the following arguments:
Pg. 9 “The claim itself recites how the improvement is accomplished, by generating resource constraint expressions from parsed rule definitions and then refraining from generating schedule options that would violate those constraints, and the specification explains that this results in faster schedule option determination than would occur if all possible scheduling permutations were generated and subsequently rejected.”
Pg. 10 “Here, the claim itself states the operative mechanism for improved computing time, namely generating constraint expressions from parsed rule definitions and refraining from generating schedule options that violate those constraints, and the specification explains that this approach determines schedule options faster than generating all possible permutations and rejecting most of them..”
Then, regarding
Pg. 7 “The amendments also materially distinguish the claimed subject matter from any
suggestion that the claim merely recites generic "receiving, analyzing, and outputting" at a results level. The specification ties the claimed parsing and constraint-expression generation to analysis of formal rule structures, including identifying rule definitions and parsing them, and in disclosed embodiments analyzing an abstract syntax tree to identify additive rules and generate corresponding constraint definitions as expressions..”
The Applicant is argument is support that the claims are not technical and directed to Organizing Human Activity.
Then, regarding
Pg. 8 “That approach fails to engage with the claim's specific practical effect, which is achieved through the concrete operational sequence of transforming rule definitions into constraint expressions and using those expressions to prevent generation of violating schedule options, a computer-centric technique that reduces computation by eliminating invalid paths from the search space.”
The Examiner wants to point out that, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as recited, described or set forth above, could be argued as implementable through computer-aided mental processes, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶3, 3), and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, such as by computer-aided evaluation, judgement and observation.
Lastly, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of crews will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, at pg. 12 Applicant argues “claim 1 now requires receiving scheduling rules comprising rule definitions and analyzing the scheduling rules to identify resource constraints by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions. The Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Pachon, or in Heinold, that performs this claimed transformation of rule definitions into generated resource constraint expressions as a distinct computational step, and the rejection's mapping therefore does not address the amendment driven limitation.; The rejection does not point to any analogous mechanism in Pachon or Heinold and thus fails to establish that the cited art teaches the claim's newly required parsing and expression generation limitation.”
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., claim 1 now requires receiving scheduling rules comprising rule definitions and analyzing the scheduling rules to identify resource constraints by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions. The Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Pachon, or in Heinold, that performs this claimed transformation of rule definitions into generated resource constraint expressions as a distinct computational step, and the rejection's mapping therefore does not address the amendment driven limitation.; The rejection does not point to any analogous mechanism in Pachon or Heinold and thus fails to establish that the cited art teaches the claim's newly required parsing and expression generation limitation..) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant’s arguments are not clear on which limitation or limitations that Pachon, or in Heinold does not teach as the Applicant has giving summaries of the limitations sometimes those interpretation can be incorrect, as such the Examiner will try to address the limitation that it seems like the Applicant is addressing. So, it seems that Applicant is saying that Pachon, or in Heinold does not teach “by parsing the rule definitions to generate corresponding resource constraint expressions”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Pachon teaches that responding/displaying founded constraints, which is equivalent to Applicant spec at 0056 and 0071, then combine with Heinold, that describes the scheduling in a transportation environment, which includes the analyzing and defining of schedule rules.
At pg. 12Applicant argues that Heinold does not teach “refrain from generating schedule options for crew members in which the schedule options that violate the various resource constraints to improve computing time."
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Heinold describes a tool that is used to eliminate invalid options when generating schedules, that helps with the improving of the processing of scheduling and reducing the use of resources. Them, Pachon describes the stopping and providing of scheduling options for a crew based on determined violations.
At pg. 13 Applicant argues: “Heinold's described elimination step necessarily results in the claimed non-generation behavior, nor does it reconcile the different operational models, particularly where the improvement in claim 1 is expressly linked to avoiding generation of violating options as a computing time reduction technique.”
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Heinold's described elimination step necessarily results in the claimed non-generation behavior, nor does it reconcile the different operational models, particularly where the improvement in claim 1 is expressly linked to avoiding generation of violating options as a computing time reduction technique..) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pachon et al., U.S. Pub. 20080215407, (discussing the resource scheduling in an aviation environment to provide rule violation feedback ).
Pachon et al., W.O. Pub. 2008106642, (discussing multiple user resource scheduling in an aviation environment).
Scott et al., Symbiotic Planning: Cognitive-Level Collaboration Between Users And Automated Planners, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA503065.pdf, 14th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, CCRP, 2009 ((discussing the resource scheduling in an aviation and military environment).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights