DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are directed to determining the travel time of a user to arrive to an airport. This falls squarely into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior and commercial or legal interactions. The recitation of additional elements does not preclude a claimed invention from being directed to said abstract idea. Especially in the case of the instant invention where the additional elements taken alone or in combination merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and merely gathers data while at the same time
generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a practical application. The Examiner disagrees, as these features described by Applicant are part of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept. the Examiner disagrees. Training a computer model is not an inventive concept as asserted. The benefit described by Applicant are a business improvement with a model just being retrained to improve performance. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are 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 25-42 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
identifying, departing flight information of a plurality of users, wherein the departing flight information designates a departure airport and a departure time;
receiving, of a user from the plurality of users, a geographical location of the computing device of the user;
receiving, by the associated with the departure airport, airport-specific data for the departure airport before the departure time of a departing flight of the user;
extracting, from payment card transactions occurred at the departure airport during a predetermined time window relative to the user's departure time, a first number of people at the departure airport;
receiving, ridesharing data indicative of a second number of people in the departure airport, terminal of the departure airport, or both, during the predetermined time window relative to the user's departure time;
updating the airport-specific data with an estimation based on the first and second number of people;
utilizing, in real-time, based on the airport-specific data, to obtain a user-specific airport processing time for the user to reach a departure gate within the departure airport by the departure time of the departing flight upon the user arriving to the departure airport;
placing a call to obtain a travel time from the geographical location to the departure airport for at least one predefined mode of transportation; and
at least one interface element that is configured to show, based at least in part on the user- specific airport processing time and the travel time, a current time for the user to reach the departure gate by the departure time of the departing flight; and retraining with the updated airport-specific data and the user-specific airport processing time to reduce passenger congestion at the departure airport.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of managing personal behavior or relationships but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “processor of a server computing device, computing device, an application software interface, POS devices, navigation system software application, one machine learning model, computer code and GUI”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, processor of a server computing device, computing device, an application software interface, navigation system software application, GUI. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- memory, computer code, processor, computing device, an application software interface, POS devices, at least one machine learning model, navigation system software application, GUI)
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process,-(receiving from the processor of a computing device; receiving from a second server computing device; retraining by the processor)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(ridesharing system software application, communication device)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component;
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to Berkheimer and the well understood routine and conventional findings, see MPEP 2106.05 (d).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While Claims 25 and 37 describe GUIs; 29 and 39 servers; 30 and 40 machine learning and websites; 32 and 42, navigation systems; 33 and 43 POS devices; 34 and 44 processor and GUIs, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies. The elements are still being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights