DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/02/2026.
No amendments have been.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-26 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 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 1-3, 6, 7, 21, and 22 are directed towards a system. Claims 8-10, 13, 14, 23, and 24 are directed towards a method. Claims 15-17, 20, 25, and 26 are directed towards a computer-readable storage medium, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
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. 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-26, the independent claims (claims 1, 8, 15) are directed to managing of rules, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, A system comprising:
receive a compiled ruleset including rules and resource data input into the user interface,
receive a plan for a trip for one or more vehicles,
determine if the rules are applicable to the plan,
schedule resources or determine one or more rosters of crew members for the trip after discarding the each of the plurality of rules,
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 processor, control unit, user interface, (additional elements recited at: Claims 15 computer-readable storage medium). 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 controls units is configured to:
discard each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan to decrease computing time and power of the one or more processors,
output scheduling data related to the resources or roster data related to the one or more rosters to the user interface.
are mere data processing and output 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 processing 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 processor, control unit, user interface. The processor, control unit, user interface are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), processor, control unit, user interface are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor, control unit, user interface 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 processor, control unit, user interface. 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 processing and output.
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 controls units is configured to:
discard each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan to decrease computing time and power of the one or more processors,
output scheduling data related to the resources or roster data related to the one or more rosters to the user interface.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and 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 processor, control unit, user interface 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, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 are not directed to any additional claim 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 claim 2 recites the use of control units to determine rules are applicable; claims 16, 17, 20, 25, 26 recites computer-readable storage. The dependent claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 recites user interface, processor, control unit, computer-readable storage which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 recites user interface, processor, control unit, computer-readable storage, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 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, 8, and 15. Therefore claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20-26 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 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 Publication US 20080059273, Miller.
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 controls 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. 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.
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 a compiled ruleset including 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. 0100, Next, at step 522 the client “B” application 504 sends a set of proposed schedule changes to the server application 506. The server application 506 responds by sending a set of warnings to indicate any rules that the proposed changes violate.
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. ),
Pachon describes a set of rules used.
receive a plan for a trip for one or more vehicles (
Pachon: Sec. 0054, The airline operation server application 136 includes various modules that perform functions for the planning and scheduling of airline flight resources. 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. 0066, The airline operations client applications 160 a and 160 b each perform functions for their respective users to do airline resource planning and scheduling, for example.
Pachon: Sec. 0067, the planning and scheduling modules 166 a and 166 b may display screens that allow the user to associate an aircraft with a planned flight or series of flights, associate a crew with a flight or series of flights, and perform other tasks related to the planning and scheduling of flights and airline resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0123, A schedule manager software application 917 may be used for planning flights and aircraft.) ,
Pachon describes plans for airline flight resources, in which resources can include airplanes according the Applicant’s spec. at 0013.
determine if the rules are applicable to the plan, and discard (See Miller) each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan (
Pachon: Sec. 0071, the rules module 144 may perform functions for a user to edit rule parameters in the rules database 164. For example, the rules database may include parameters that reflect an airline policy, such as a ratio of flight hours to training hours. The rules database may store a value of “1000” to define this ratio, but this ratio may need to be changed (e.g., airline policy change, pilot union contract change, FAA regulations change) to a value of “900.” The rules module 144 may provide functions for a user to update the ratio or other rule parameters stored in the rules database 164.
Pachon: Sec. 0072, rules may contain parameters (e.g., variables) that may permit quantitative or other types of parameters that may be stored elsewhere (e.g., the rules database 164). The rules engine 144 may obtain the specific values of rule parameters by loading the rule parameters from storage. 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. 0073, Some of those rules will be mandatory, and thus must be followed, whereas others may be guidelines or preferences that may be ignored in some cases. Before turning to the rule checking process, there will first be a discussion of the rules database, and how the rules database and parameters for the rules may be updated or edited.
Pachon: Sec. 0074, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary computer implemented method 200 for editing airline operations rule parameters. In general, a user edits a rule parameter using a client application (e.g., the airline operations client application 112 of FIG. 1A or 160 a and 160 b of FIG. 1B), rule logic is handled by a rules engine (e.g., the rules module 144 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B), and rule parameters are stored in a rules database (e.g., the rules database 164 of FIG. 1B).
Pachon: Sec. 0021, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary process for editing airline operations rule parameters.
Pachon: Sec. 0046, The administration module 122 provides functionality for a user to edit airline resource information, security settings, rules parameters, or other administrative tasks. For example, an airline regulation that prohibits pilots from flying more than twelve hours without a rest period may be changed to a maximum of ten hours, and the administration module may allow the user to edit the rule parameter for maximum flight time to reflect the updated regulation.).
Pachon describes editing rules, which includes ignoring rules, wherein the Examiner is interpreting the discarding of rules.
schedule resources or determine one or more rosters of crew members for the trip after discarding (See Miller) the each of the plurality of rules (
Pachon: Sec. 0012, The planning optimizer and decision support system may be or include a crew resource optimizer. The planning optimizer and decision support system may be or include a flight schedule optimizer. The scheduling optimizer and decision support system may be or include a crew pairing and crew roster optimizer.
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. 0054, 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. 0071, the rules module 144 may perform functions for a user to edit rule parameters in the rules database 164. For example, the rules database may include parameters that reflect an airline policy, such as a ratio of flight hours to training hours. The rules database may store a value of “1000” to define this ratio, but this ratio may need to be changed (e.g., airline policy change, pilot union contract change, FAA regulations change) to a value of “900.” The rules module 144 may provide functions for a user to update the ratio or other rule parameters stored in the rules database 164.
Pachon: Sec. 0072, rules may contain parameters (e.g., variables) that may permit quantitative or other types of parameters that may be stored elsewhere (e.g., the rules database 164). The rules engine 144 may obtain the specific values of rule parameters by loading the rule parameters from storage. 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. 0073, Some of those rules will be mandatory, and thus must be followed, whereas others may be guidelines or preferences that may be ignored in some cases. Before turning to the rule checking process, there will first be a discussion of the rules database, and how the rules database and parameters for the rules may be updated or edited.
Pachon: Sec. 0074, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary computer implemented method 200 for editing airline operations rule parameters. In general, a user edits a rule parameter using a client application (e.g., the airline operations client application 112 of FIG. 1A or 160 a and 160 b of FIG. 1B), rule logic is handled by a rules engine (e.g., the rules module 144 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B), and rule parameters are stored in a rules database (e.g., the rules database 164 of FIG. 1B).
Pachon: Sec. 0021, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary process for editing airline operations rule parameters.
Pachon: Sec. 0046, The administration module 122 provides functionality for a user to edit airline resource information, security settings, rules parameters, or other administrative tasks. For example, an airline regulation that prohibits pilots from flying more than twelve hours without a rest period may be changed to a maximum of ten hours, and the administration module may allow the user to edit the rule parameter for maximum flight time to reflect the updated regulation.).
Pachon describes creating schedules and plans for rosters after determining which rules to edit and ignore, wherein the Examiner is interpreting the discarding of rules.
and output scheduling data related to the resources or roster data related to the one or more rosters to the user interface (
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. For example, the planning and scheduling module 118 may display screens that allow the user to associate an airliner with a planned flight or series of flights, associate a crew with a flight or series of flights, and perform other tasks related to the planning and scheduling of flights and airline resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0054, The airline operations application tier 106 includes an airline operation server application 136. The airline operation server application 136 includes various modules that perform functions for the planning and scheduling of airline flight resources. 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. 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 describes output of schedules by generating schedules based on rosters and use of a user interface.
Both Pachon and Miller teaches discard/discarding
Pachon does explicitly teach discard/discarding rules and schedule resources.
However, Miller teaches discard/discarding rules and schedule resources (
Miller: Sec. 0081, As indicated above with reference to FIG. 1, the system may adjust the resources and repeat either the entire scheduling process or a portion of the scheduling process. The adjustment to resources can be based on the information about the causes of skipped demands acquired when demands are marked at steps 324, 328, and 332. For example, if the markings indicate that numerous demands are being skipped to a shortage of flight attendants qualified on Embraer airplanes, and that these skips occur primarily on March 31 and later, the system may adjust the database of resources to indicate that there are additional flight attendants so qualified and issue an indication that such additional flight attendants should be hired and trained to be available as of March 31. The system may recalculate the entire schedule based on the assumption that a certain number of additional flight attendants are available for March 31 onward. Alternatively, if the demands have been ordered according to departure time and date, the system may recalculate only that portion of the schedule from March 31 onward, and concatenate the recalculated schedule with the earlier-calculated schedule prior to March 31 to form a composite schedule. Total CTM for the recalculated schedule can be compared to the CTM for the original schedule to determine whether the suggested change in resources is economically desirable. Likewise, if the skipped node indications suggest that additional airplanes of a particular type should be made available, the system may alter the database of resources to indicate that such additional airplanes are available, recalculate the schedule or a portion of the schedule with such indication, and compare the CTM of the recalculated schedule with the CTM of the original schedule to determine the advantage obtainable by acquiring or leasing more airplanes.
Miller: Sec. 0090, Maintenance of this type must be performed at intervals set by rules which may include, for example, specified numbers of flying hours, takeoffs or landings, or calendar days, or some combination of these. As set forth above, the resource database maintained by the system contains status information for each aircraft, which includes these factors. The system may review the database or a portion of the database pertaining to a particular aircraft each time the aircraft is incorporated into a schedule fragment. If the status of the aircraft at the end of the new schedule fragment will be such that the aircraft requires maintenance, the system may simply schedule the aircraft a priori for the particular maintenance required, mark the resource database to indicate that the aircraft will be out of service for the required interval (typically days or weeks), and pass a signal to a maintenance control system or to a human operator indicating when the aircraft will be made available for maintenance and the type of maintenance required. In a further variant, if the status information for a particular aircraft indicates that a maintenance deadline is approaching, the system may set an artificially low cost for the aircraft to fly to a destination at or near the appropriate maintenance base, thus increasing the probability that the next scheduled demand will take the aircraft to or near the maintenance base. The ability to interact with maintenance systems and to schedule aircraft realistically with full cognizance of required maintenance provides a significant advantage.);
Pachon and Miller are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Miller at 0064). 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 Miller, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling of aviation resources to enhancing the management of schedules and resources in airlines. (See Miller at Sec. 0033, 0067, 0077, 0079).
Referring to Claim 2, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control units is configured to determine if the rules are applicable to the plan and discard (See Miller) each of the plurality of rules not applicable to the plan during runtime (
Pachon: Sec. 0070, The rules database 164 includes airline operations rules. For example, the rules module 144 may include a rule that checks to determine if a pilot has flown more than “N” hours in an “M” hour period. The values for “N” and “M” may be stored in the rules database and queried by the rules module 144 to define the number of hours a pilot may fly in a certain period.
Pachon: Sec. 0071, the rules module 144 may perform functions for a user to edit rule parameters in the rules database 164. For example, the rules database may include parameters that reflect an airline policy, such as a ratio of flight hours to training hours. The rules database may store a value of “1000” to define this ratio, but this ratio may need to be changed (e.g., airline policy change, pilot union contract change, FAA regulations change) to a value of “900.” The rules module 144 may provide functions for a user to update the ratio or other rule parameters stored in the rules database 164.
Pachon: Sec. 0072, rules may contain parameters (e.g., variables) that may permit quantitative or other types of parameters that may be stored elsewhere (e.g., the rules database 164). The rules engine 144 may obtain the specific values of rule parameters by loading the rule parameters from storage. 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. 0073, Some of those rules will be mandatory, and thus must be followed, whereas others may be guidelines or preferences that may be ignored in some cases. Before turning to the rule checking process, there will first be a discussion of the rules database, and how the rules database and parameters for the rules may be updated or edited.
Pachon: Sec. 0074, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary computer implemented method 200 for editing airline operations rule parameters. In general, a user edits a rule parameter using a client application (e.g., the airline operations client application 112 of FIG. 1A or 160 a and 160 b of FIG. 1B), rule logic is handled by a rules engine (e.g., the rules module 144 shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B), and rule parameters are stored in a rules database (e.g., the rules database 164 of FIG. 1B).
Pachon: Sec. 0021, FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of an exemplary process for editing airline operations rule parameters.
Pachon: Sec. 0046, The administration module 122 provides functionality for a user to edit airline resource information, security settings, rules parameters, or other administrative tasks. For example, an airline regulation that prohibits pilots from flying more than twelve hours without a rest period may be changed to a maximum of ten hours, and the administration module may allow the user to edit the rule parameter for maximum flight time to reflect the updated regulation.).
Pachon describes creating schedules which includes editing and ignoring rules, wherein the Examiner is interpreting the discarding of rules.
Both Pachon and Miller teaches discard/discarding
Pachon does explicitly teach discard/discarding rules and schedule resources.
However, Miller teaches discard/discarding rules and schedule resources (
Miller: Sec. 0081, As indicated above with reference to FIG. 1, the system may adjust the resources and repeat either the entire scheduling process or a portion of the scheduling process. The adjustment to resources can be based on the information about the causes of skipped demands acquired when demands are marked at steps 324, 328, and 332. For example, if the markings indicate that numerous demands are being skipped to a shortage of flight attendants qualified on Embraer airplanes, and that these skips occur primarily on March 31 and later, the system may adjust the database of resources to indicate that there are additional flight attendants so qualified and issue an indication that such additional flight attendants should be hired and trained to be available as of March 31. The system may recalculate the entire schedule based on the assumption that a certain number of additional flight attendants are available for March 31 onward. Alternatively, if the demands have been ordered according to departure time and date, the system may recalculate only that portion of the schedule from March 31 onward, and concatenate the recalculated schedule with the earlier-calculated schedule prior to March 31 to form a composite schedule. Total CTM for the recalculated schedule can be compared to the CTM for the original schedule to determine whether the suggested change in resources is economically desirable. Likewise, if the skipped node indications suggest that additional airplanes of a particular type should be made available, the system may alter the database of resources to indicate that such additional airplanes are available, recalculate the schedule or a portion of the schedule with such indication, and compare the CTM of the recalculated schedule with the CTM of the original schedule to determine the advantage obtainable by acquiring or leasing more airplanes.
Miller: Sec. 0090, Maintenance of this type must be performed at intervals set by rules which may include, for example, specified numbers of flying hours, takeoffs or landings, or calendar days, or some combination of these. As set forth above, the resource database maintained by the system contains status information for each aircraft, which includes these factors. The system may review the database or a portion of the database pertaining to a particular aircraft each time the aircraft is incorporated into a schedule fragment. If the status of the aircraft at the end of the new schedule fragment will be such that the aircraft requires maintenance, the system may simply schedule the aircraft a priori for the particular maintenance required, mark the resource database to indicate that the aircraft will be out of service for the required interval (typically days or weeks), and pass a signal to a maintenance control system or to a human operator indicating when the aircraft will be made available for maintenance and the type of maintenance required. In a further variant, if the status information for a particular aircraft indicates that a maintenance deadline is approaching, the system may set an artificially low cost for the aircraft to fly to a destination at or near the appropriate maintenance base, thus increasing the probability that the next scheduled demand will take the aircraft to or near the maintenance base. The ability to interact with maintenance systems and to schedule aircraft realistically with full cognizance of required maintenance provides a significant advantage.);
Pachon and Miller are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Miller at 0064). 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 Miller, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling of aviation resources to enhancing the management of schedules and resources in airlines. (See Miller at Sec. 0033, 0067, 0077, 0079).
Referring to Claim 3, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plan includes both resources and crew rosters for the trip (
Pachon: Sec. 0054, The airline operation server application 136 includes various modules that perform functions for the planning and scheduling of airline flight resources. 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. 0066, The airline operations client applications 160 a and 160 b each perform functions for their respective users to do airline resource planning and scheduling, for example.
Pachon: Sec. 0067, the planning and scheduling modules 166 a and 166 b may display screens that allow the user to associate an aircraft with a planned flight or series of flights, associate a crew with a flight or series of flights, and perform other tasks related to the planning and scheduling of flights and airline resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0123, A schedule manager software application 917 may be used for planning flights and aircraft.) ,
Pachon describes plans for airline flight resources planned flights, in which Applicant’s spec teaches that trips includes flights.
Referring to Claim 6, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more vehicles includes one or more aircraft, and wherein the trip includes a plurality of flights between different airports (
Pachon: Sec. 0088, the displayed pairing 405 includes a series of five flights, namely, a flight from JFK airport in New York to Oakland (OAK), a flight from Oakland to Boston (BOS), a flight from Boston back to Oakland, a flight from Oakland to Long Beach, Calif. (LGB), and a flight from Long Beach back to JFK airport in New York. In this example, the pairing 405 starts and ends from the same airport, JFK. Airport codes and flight times of departure and arrival are shown for each of the flights of the pairing 405 on strips on the Gantt chart 402.).
Referring to Claim 7, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the rules comprise one or both of scheduling rules or rostering rules (
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. For example, the planning and scheduling module 118 may display screens that allow the user to associate an airliner with a planned flight or series of flights, associate a crew with a flight or series of flights, and perform other tasks related to the planning and scheduling of flights and airline resources.
Pachon: Sec. 0054, The airline operation server application 136 includes various modules that perform functions for the planning and scheduling of airline flight resources. 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. 0124, 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.).
Claims 8-10, 13, and 14; 15-17 and 20 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 7. 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.)
Claims 21-25 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 Publication US 20080059273, Miller. to hereinafter Miller in view of United States Patent Number US 8700438, Heinold.
Referring to Claim 21, Pachon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to discard (See Miller and Heinold) the each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan, includes identifying constraints embedded within the rules, and discarding options (See Heinold) that violate the constraints (
Pachon: Sec. 0073, As will be described in more detail later, a process or method is provided by which rule checking is performed in a very immediate or “real-time” manner, such that a user who is in the process of making edits to a schedule is provided nearly instantaneous feedback on a display device if a proposed change violates any of many rules that may need to be followed with the schedule. Such a rule-checking and display process may be performed even before the proposed changes are actually “committed” to the schedule, or in other words, before the scheduling user enters into the system that a set of proposed changes will be made to the schedule. Such a rule-checking and display method is particularly useful in the context of an airline operations system in which there may be many rules that apply to scheduling. Some of those rules will be mandatory, and thus must be followed, whereas others may be guidelines or preferences that may be ignored in some cases. Before turning to the rule checking process, there will first be a discussion of the rules database, and how the rules database and parameters for the rules may be updated or edited.
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. Also, Pachon describes editing rules, which includes ignoring rules, wherein the Examiner is interpreting the discarding of rules.
Both Pachon, Miller, and Heinold teaches discard/discarding
Pachon does explicitly teach discard/discarding rules and schedule resources.
However, Miller teaches discard/discarding rules and schedule resources (
Miller: Sec. 0081, As indicated above with reference to FIG. 1, the system may adjust the resources and repeat either the entire scheduling process or a portion of the scheduling process. The adjustment to resources can be based on the information about the causes of skipped demands acquired when demands are marked at steps 324, 328, and 332. For example, if the markings indicate that numerous demands are being skipped to a shortage of flight attendants qualified on Embraer airplanes, and that these skips occur primarily on March 31 and later, the system may adjust the database of resources to indicate that there are additional flight attendants so qualified and issue an indication that such additional flight attendants should be hired and trained to be available as of March 31. The system may recalculate the entire schedule based on the assumption that a certain number of additional flight attendants are available for March 31 onward. Alternatively, if the demands have been ordered according to departure time and date, the system may recalculate only that portion of the schedule from March 31 onward, and concatenate the recalculated schedule with the earlier-calculated schedule prior to March 31 to form a composite schedule. Total CTM for the recalculated schedule can be compared to the CTM for the original schedule to determine whether the suggested change in resources is economically desirable. Likewise, if the skipped node indications suggest that additional airplanes of a particular type should be made available, the system may alter the database of resources to indicate that such additional airplanes are available, recalculate the schedule or a portion of the schedule with such indication, and compare the CTM of the recalculated schedule with the CTM of the original schedule to determine the advantage obtainable by acquiring or leasing more airplanes.
Miller: Sec. 0090, Maintenance of this type must be performed at intervals set by rules which may include, for example, specified numbers of flying hours, takeoffs or landings, or calendar days, or some combination of these. As set forth above, the resource database maintained by the system contains status information for each aircraft, which includes these factors. The system may review the database or a portion of the database pertaining to a particular aircraft each time the aircraft is incorporated into a schedule fragment. If the status of the aircraft at the end of the new schedule fragment will be such that the aircraft requires maintenance, the system may simply schedule the aircraft a priori for the particular maintenance required, mark the resource database to indicate that the aircraft will be out of service for the required interval (typically days or weeks), and pass a signal to a maintenance control system or to a human operator indicating when the aircraft will be made available for maintenance and the type of maintenance required. In a further variant, if the status information for a particular aircraft indicates that a maintenance deadline is approaching, the system may set an artificially low cost for the aircraft to fly to a destination at or near the appropriate maintenance base, thus increasing the probability that the next scheduled demand will take the aircraft to or near the maintenance base. The ability to interact with maintenance systems and to schedule aircraft realistically with full cognizance of required maintenance provides a significant advantage.);
Pachon and Miller are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Miller at 0064). 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 Miller, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling of aviation resources to enhancing the management of schedules and resources in airlines. (See Miller at Sec. 0033, 0067, 0077, 0079).
Both Pachon and Heinold teaches violate the constraints
Pachon in view of Miller does explicitly teach discarding options that violate the constraints.
However, Heinold teaches discarding options that violate the 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.);
Pachon, Miller, and Heinold are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Miller at 0064; 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 in view of Miller, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling problems in view of Heinold, 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 22, Pachon teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the constraints are resource constraints (
Pachon: Sec. 0116, The crewmembers' schedules are shown in the Gantt chart display area 760 in their entirety, and not just the parts of the crewmembers' schedules that are included in the pairing. As can be seen, both crewmembers shown in FIG. 7C are also assigned to another pairing the next day, May 2. The pairing to which they are assigned is pairing number J2010. As such, the constraints of crewmembers assigned to a pairing can be seen by a scheduler, which may be useful if, for example, the crewmember may wish to revise the pairing in some way.
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 in view of Miller does explicitly teach and the options are scheduling options.
However, Heinold teaches and the options are scheduling options (
Heinold: Col. 2. Ln. 10-27, Multiple schedule options are defined. The schedule options include the invalid schedule options and the reduced set of schedule options, and the network of transportation resources is a network of aircraft serving multiple stations. The transportation resources include multiple classes of transportation resources. Routings are generated such that, for each class of transportation resources, each station includes the same number of transportation resources at the end of a repeating period. The first set of constraints and the second set of constraints include operational constraints and marketing constraints. The second set of constraints includes at least a subset of the first set of constraints. The first set of constraints includes market spacing constraints, operational station constraints, constraints relating to a number of aircraft to remain overnight at a station, and constraints relating to turnaround times, and the second set of constraints includes routing 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.);
Pachon, Miller, and Heinold are all directed to the analysis of scheduling of aviation resources (See Pachon at 0012, 0037; Miller at 0064; 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 in view of Miller, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling problems in view of Heinold, 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).
Claims 23-26 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claims 21 and 22 system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/02/2026 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 03/02/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 6-13 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 controls units is configured to:
receive a compiled ruleset including rules and resource data input into the user interface,
receive a plan for a trip for one or more vehicles,
determine if the rules are applicable to the plan,
discard each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan to decrease computing time and power of the one or more processors,
schedule resources or determine one or more rosters of crew members for the trip after discarding the each of the plurality of rules, and
output scheduling data related to the resources or roster data related to the one or more rosters to the user interface.
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 rules, 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 and RAVE 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. 7 and 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:
“Current computing devices use a trial-and-error method that "consumes computing power and time. Indeed, a typical RAVE checking method can take days to perform, thereby consuming vast amounts of computing power" Id.
To solve these computer-based problems Applicant provides a control unit that determines if rules are applicable to a plan and discards each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan. In one example this is accomplished by analyzing rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules. Original Specification Para. [0045]. After determining the various limits within the scheduling rules, the control unit refrains from generating schedule options that violate the determined limits. Id."In this manner, the scheduling control unit 102 efficiently determines the schedule options in a much faster manner than if all possible scheduling permutations were generated.”
and arguments at pg. 7 and 8 seems to describe a “particular way” of managing of the rules for scheduling of crews and crew resources. The Applicant is basically relying on the control unit and RAVE as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those control unit and RAVE aren't really utilized in any particular manner. Additionally, the Applicant argument of “provide improved computing time and power conservation by determining if the rules are applicable to a plan and discarding each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan.”, 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.
Lastly, regarding at pg. 11 argument “This argument can only be made by ignoring the claim language quoted - "by determining if the rules are applicable to a plan and discarding each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan." This is exactly how the computer time and power is saved, and it is claimed. When the system schedules resources or determines one or more rosters of crew members for a trip as also claimed, is when such time and power is saved. Because less options exist to choose from as a result of the discarding of the plurality of rules, less processing and time is then required to schedule the resources or determine the one or more rosters. Consequently, in contradiction to the Examiner's assertion, the claim itself explains how and when improving of computer time and power is executed by the system.” The Examiner, respectfully disagrees and wants to point out that claims do not show or break down any technical or at less structural proof on how this is actually executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement, hence meaning the claims could be performed manually be the human resources listed in the Applicant’s spec. Therefore, making it more prevalent for the Examiner to direct the Applicant to Leapfrog Enters.
Additionally, the Examiner did consider “the Kim Memo” and all examination falls in line with the memo. Thus, the Examiner would like to direct 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)
At pg. 8 and 9, the Applicant argues that “the claims are similar to Example 3 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples provided by the USPTO.”
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In regards to example 3, the inventive concept is found in the unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements, Hypothetical claims 1-3 are directed to an abstract idea and have additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they show an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself and also show an improvement to another technology/technical field, either of which can show eligibility.
In contrast, Applicant’s claims are simply recite instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic set of computer components. Claims when viewed as a whole 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; rather, Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem.
At pg. 10, the Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Cosmokey.
The Examiner respectfully disagree. The Examiner finds the claims are directed to the receiving, analyzing, and refraining of scheduling data. However, the court found CosmoKey discloses an unconventional technical solution to a security problem in networks and computers.
Specifically, the claim limitations in CosmoKey recite an improved method for overcoming hacking by ensuring that the authentication function is normally inactive, activating only for a transaction, communicating the activation within a certain time window, and thereafter ensuring that the authentication function is automatically deactivated. The specification explains that these features in combination with the other elements of the claim constitute an improvement that increases computer and network security, prevents a third party from fraudulently identifying itself as the user, and is easy to implement and can be carried out even with mobile devices of low complexity.
Examiner finds no similar improvement in the present claimed invention and finds Applicant arguments to be directed to the improvement to an existing business process – resource management (i.e. managing and scheduling of resources and crews) – and not technology or technological field.
At pg. 10 and 11, the Applicant argues “This is an oversimplification of the claim that is inconsistent with Applicant’s Specification. The Applicant is not relying in any way on RAVE and instead presents a system where “computing time and power are conserved, and the scheduling control unit 102 vastly improves the efficiency and operation of a business rules engine, such as RAVE.” In particular, Applicant is providing a system with improved processing compared to a RAVE system, and the Examiner’s assertion Applicant is relying on RAVE is incorrect and evidences a lack on analysis of Applicant’s Specification as required.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagree. The Examiner did not oversimplify the claims, as when the Examiner said “The Applicant is basically relying on the control unit and RAVE as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those control unit and RAVE aren't really utilized in any particular manner”, was in response the Applicant’s following argument and not claims:
“Current computing devices use a trial-and-error method that "consumes computing power and time. Indeed, a typical RAVE checking method can take days to perform, thereby consuming vast amounts of computing power" Id.
To solve these computer-based problems Applicant provides a scheduling control unit that analyzes scheduling rules to identify various resource constraints embedded within the scheduling rules. Original Specification Para. [0042]. After determining the various limits within the scheduling rules, the scheduling control unit refrains from generating schedule options that violate the determined limits. Id."In this manner, the scheduling control unit 102 efficiently determines the schedule options in a much faster manner than if all possible scheduling permutations were generated”
As the Applicant also says “scheduling control unit 102 vastly improves the efficiency and operation of a business rules engine, such as RAVE” in which the Examiner is interpreted the arguments to say that the Applicant is relying on control unit and RAVE
At pg. 11, the Applicant argues “The Examiner also asserts that "Applicant argument of 'provide improved computing time and power conservation by determining if the rules are applicable to a plan and discarding each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan', seem to be addressing something that is not explained in the specs or claims of how and when improving of computer time and power is executed." Final Office Action Pg. 24. This argument can only be made by ignoring the claim language quoted - "by determining if the rules are applicable to a plan and discarding each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan." This is exactly how the computer time and power is saved, and it is claimed. When the system schedules resources or determines one or more rosters of crew members for a trip as also claimed, is when such time and power is saved. Because less options exist to choose from as a result of the discarding of the plurality of rules, less processing and time is then required to schedule the resources or determine the one or more rosters. Consequently, in contradiction to the Examiner's assertion, the claim itself explains how and when improving of computer time and power is executed by the system.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagree. As, stated before, The Applicant seem to be addressing something that is not explained in the specs or claims of how and when improving of computer time and power is executed. The Examiner wants to point out that claims do not show or break down how this is actually executed, at this point it’s just an aspirational statement. Lastly, the Examiner did consider “the Kim Memo” and all examination falls in line with the memo.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, at pg. 16 Applicant argues that “Miller does not cure and Pachon in view of Miller does not teach or suggest one or more processors configured to "discard each of the plurality of rules that is not applicable to the plan to decrease computing time and power of the one or more processors" and "schedule resources or determine one or more rosters of crew members for the trip after discarding the each of the plurality of rules."”
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; which is similar to the Applicants arguments “When the system schedules resources or determines one or more rosters of crew members for a trip as also claimed, is when such time and power is saved. Because less options exist to choose from as a result of the discarding of the plurality of rules, less processing and time is then required to schedule the resources or determine the one or more rosters” Then, Pachon describes creating schedules and plans for rosters after determining which rules to edit and ignore, wherein the Examiner is interpreting the discarding of rules; however, Miller teaches elements for discarding rules, such as recalculating, and suggesting changes, which the features can support the scheduling of resources . Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Pachon in view of Miller teaches these limitations.
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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