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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply in response to communications filed on 4 of August 2026.
Claims 2 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 2-8 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that that all of the amended features render the claimed subject matter more than a mere abstract idea or render any abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously disclosed, under BRI, the invention is aimed at sole reservation vs. sharing reservation of an aircraft via a device which is similar to those of chartering a private plane. A human can observe and mentally or with the aid of pen and paper provide reservation services for an aircraft. The human is able to interact with users and aid on a sole or shared reservation of an aircraft. Additionally, the claims are aimed at following rules or instructions which are aimed at organizing human activity, therefore under step 2A Prong I analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. As noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis "); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 85 0 F.3d 13 32, 134 0 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data " is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 13 72 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 2 recites “a management apparatus comprising one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the management apparatus to: selectively accept, through sequential wireless communications with a user terminal, a reservation which is one of an exclusive use reservation in which an aircraft is exclusively used by a sole reservation holder who has solely made a reservation for use of the aircraft, and a sharing reservation in which the aircraft is shared by a plurality of reservation holders who each have made a reservation for use of the aircraft; communicate wirelessly with a the user terminal to configure a display thereof to allow for a user of the user terminal to make a further sharing reservation when the accepted reservation that is made earliest within a predetermined reservation acceptance period is the sharing reservation or when the accepted reservation that is made earliest within a predetermined reservation acceptance period is the exclusive use reservation that has been changed to the sharing reservation; automatically formulate a utilization plan for the aircraft based on a result of acceptance of the reservation for use of the aircraft; wirelessly transmit information indicating the utilization plan to an administrator terminal of an administrator who manages the operation of the aircraft and to the user terminal to provide notification of the utilization plan to the administrator and to the reservation holder by transmitting, wherein sharing the aircraft includes a mode in which a cargo compartment is used by a reservation holder among the reservation holders who is different from a reservation holder among the reservation holders who uses a passenger compartment, the cargo compartment and the passenger compartment being provided in the aircraft, and the utilization plan is automatically formulated to include information indicating a count of the plurality of reservation holders, information indicating an operation cost to be borne by each reservation holder of the plurality of reservation holders, and information indicating a usage mode of at least one of the passenger compartment and the cargo compartment provided in the aircraft including whether or not a temporary seat is installed in the passenger compartment and whether or not the cargo compartment is used for transportation of supplies”. Claims 7, and 8 disclose similar limitations as Claim 2, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 2, 7, and 8 are directed to “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-6 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 2, 7, and 8 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 2, 7, and 8 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 2, 7, and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶16-17 “The user terminal 100 is a terminal used by a user of the management system 10. The user terminal 100 is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a personal computer (PC), or the like. The user terminal 100 includes an operation unit 102, a display unit 104, a communication unit 106, a storage unit 108, and a computation unit (control unit) 110. The operation unit 102 receives an input operation performed by the user on the user terminal 100. The display unit 104 includes a display element (not illustrated). The display element is, for example, a liquid crystal display element, an organic electroluminescence display element, or the like. At least a part of the operation unit 102 and the display unit 104 may be constituted by a touch panel (not illustrated)
provided with such a display element”.
Claims 3-6 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrate under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights