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 the Claims
Claims 21-30 and 32-40 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 21, 34, 36 and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 and 31 have been canceled.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019). Examiner strongly recommends Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss the pending rejection in light of the amendments.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner maintains the rejection for in at least the reasons stated in the Advisory Action dated 08/08/2025. The amendments further recite data analysis and the sending of instructions which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
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.
Regarding Claims 21-30 and 32-33, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 21-30 and 32-33 are directed to the abstract idea of managing an aviation transport network.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 21, claim 21 recites accessing, data defining a plurality of requests for transportation services for respective riders, rider origins, and rider destinations; computing, assignments of selected ones of the plurality of requests to trip itineraries that include transportation by a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft of a fleet of aircraft, each of the selected requests being associated with data indicative of a threshold arrival time at the respective rider destination corresponding to the respective selected request; accessing, demand data associated with the transportation services at an origin for the VTOL aircraft and at a destination for the VTOL aircraft; computing, a VTOL-hold value based at least in part on the demand data and the threshold arrival times, the VTOL-hold value predictive of whether another request will be received for an additional rider and the additional rider will board the VTOL aircraft within a time period such that each of the riders of the selected requests will arrive at the respective rider destinations prior to the respective threshold arrival times; and controlling and based on the VTOL-hold value exceeding a likelihood threshold, take-off for the VTOL aircraft to allow for one or more additional riders; transmitting data corresponding to instructions for charging the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off while waiting for the one or more additional riders; and routing, the VTOL aircraft based on a battery level achieved by the charging of the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off and the payload of the aircraft comprising the number of riders in the VTOL aircraft.
These claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the managing of personal behavior. Notably the organization and instructions for handling transportation services for riders. In addition, Claims 25-26, 29-30, and 32 recite Mental Processes for the limitations are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinions). Furthermore, the generic recitation of a machine learning model in Claims 27 and 28 does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 22-30 and 32-33 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a computing system and one or more computing devices. The computing system and one or more computing devices are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 21-25, 27-29 and 33 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a computing system, one or more computing devices, machine learning model and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0111-0113. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 21 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, Claims 21-25, 27-29 and 33, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 34-39, they are directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 34-39 are directed to the abstract idea of managing an aviation transport network.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 34, claim 34 recites accessing data defining a plurality of requests for transportation services for respective riders, origins, and destinations; computing assignments of selected ones of the plurality of requests to trip itineraries that include transportation by a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft of a fleet of aircraft, each of the selected requests being associated with data indicative of a threshold departure time from the corresponding origin and data indicative of a threshold arrival time at the corresponding destination; accessing demand data associated with the transportation services, the threshold departure times, and the threshold arrival times; computing a VTOL-hold value based at least in part on the demand data, the VTOL-hold value predictive of whether another request will be received for an additional rider and the additional rider will board the VTOL aircraft within a time period such that each of the riders of selected requests will depart the corresponding origin prior to the respective threshold departure time and will arrive at the corresponding destination prior to the respective threshold arrival time; controlling, based on the VTOL-hold value exceeding a likelihood threshold, take-off for the VTOL aircraft to allow for one or more additional riders; transmitting data corresponding to instructions for charging the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off while waiting for the one or more additional riders; and routing, the VTOL aircraft based on a battery level achieved by the charging of the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off and the payload of the aircraft comprising the number of riders in the VTOL aircraft.
These claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the managing of personal behavior. Notably the organization and instructions for handling transportation services for riders. In addition, Claims 37 and 38 recite Mental Processes for the limitations are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinions).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 35-39 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more processors. The one or more processors are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 34 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0111-0113. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 34 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, Claim 34 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 40 is directed to a system, however the claim is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 40 is directed to the abstract idea of managing an aviation transport network.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 40, claim 40 recites accessing data defining a plurality of requests for transportation services for respective riders, origins, and destinations; computing assignments of selected ones of the plurality of requests to trip itineraries that include transportation by a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft of a fleet of aircraft, each of the selected requests being associated with data indicative of a threshold arrival time at the corresponding destination; accessing demand data associated with the transportation services, and the threshold arrival times; computing a VTOL-hold value based at least in part on the demand data, the VTOL-hold value predictive of whether another request will be received for an additional rider and the additional rider will board the VTOL aircraft within a time period such that each of the riders of selected requests will arrive at the destination prior to the respective threshold arrival time; controlling, based on the VTOL-hold value exceeding a likelihood threshold, take-off for the VTOL aircraft to allow for one or more additional riders; transmitting data corresponding to instructions for charging the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off while waiting for the one or more additional riders; and routing, the VTOL aircraft based on a battery level achieved by the charging of the VTOL aircraft prior to take-off and the payload of the aircraft comprising the number of riders in the VTOL aircraft.
These claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the managing of personal behavior. Notably the organization and instructions for handling transportation services for riders.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media. The one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 40 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0111-0113. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 40 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, Claim 40 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623