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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 of claims 2-3 and 15-16 read “the progress of the flight” which appears to be a continuity error since the progress is monitored of the linking flight in claims 1 and 14 which claims 2-3 and 15-16 depend upon respectively. Thus, this should read “the progress of the linking flight” to maintain continuity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
receiving, at a flight tracking system from a traffic data provider, a first set of traffic data for a flight, wherein the first set of traffic data comprises a flight taxi time and a registration number for an aircraft operating the flight;
storing the first set of traffic data in a data store;
updating a user interface to display the first set of traffic data for the flight;
receiving, from the traffic data provider, a second set of traffic data for the flight, wherein the second set of traffic data is received at a later time than the first set of traffic data, and wherein the second set of traffic data comprises the registration number for the aircraft;
determining, based on the registration number for the aircraft, that a linking flight is scheduled for the aircraft operating the flight;
monitoring a progress of the linking flight by comparing the first set of traffic data and the second set of traffic data, wherein monitoring the progress of the linking flight comprises:
calculating a turnaround time for the linking flight based on the flight taxi time and the second set of traffic data; and
comparing the turnaround time to a threshold; and
highlighting the linking flight on the user interface based on detection of a change in the progress of the flight, wherein a highlight color indicates a delay of the linking flight based on the turnaround time falling below the threshold
The limitations (e-h) recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is; other than reciting processors, memories, and non-transitory computer readable media; nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can mentally compare the aircraft numbers for a future and current flight to determine that the flights are linked (e). The person can then subtract the sum of an estimated arrival time and scheduled taxi-in time of the inbound plane from a scheduled taxi-out time of the outbound plane to determine a turnaround time (f-g). The person can then mentally determine if the calculated turnaround time is within a minimum feasible turnaround time wherein a delay is determined if the turnaround time is below this minimum (f and h). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processors, memories, and non-transitory computer readable media is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The operations of obtaining and storing the first and second data sets (a-b and d) are no more than insignificant, extra pre-solution activities of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. The operation of updating a user interface to display the first set of traffic data (c) is an insignificant, extra pre-solution activity of mere display. The operation of highlighting a flight on a user interface (i) is an insignificant, extra post solution activity of mere display. Mere display cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processors, memories, and non-transitory computer readable media is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The limitations of obtaining and storing the first and second data sets (a-b and d) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the storage and retrieval of data from memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The limitations of displaying and highlighting data (c and i) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that mere display with no specific instructions on how to achieve the desired result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11, 15-18, and 21-24 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea and/or additional insignificant, extra solution activities of mere display and/or mere data gathering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 11, 14-15, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. US 20020082848 A1 (hereinafter Hansen) in view of Cardi et al. US 8682363 B1 (hereinafter Cardi), Johnson et al. US 20170323274 A1 (hereinafter Johnson), "Supplementary Information for Systemic delay propagation in the US airport network" by Fleurquin et al. (hereinafter Fleurquin), Jamotta et al. US 8050936 B1 (hereinafter Jamotta), and Heinold US 8700438 B1 (hereinafter Heinold).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20; Hansen teaches a system comprising:
one or more computer processors (Figure 1 26 "airline processor" and 32 "airport processor and 28 "FIP processor"); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media collectively containing one or more programs, which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform a method (paragraph 0037 "a computer-readable medium having instructions thereon for implementing the method of the present invention") comprising:
receiving, at a flight tracking system from a traffic data provider (paragraph 0022 discloses flight information is transmitted from the airline processor to FIP processor), a first set of traffic data for a flight (Figure 3, for example, discloses airline arrival time);
updating a user interface to display the first set of traffic data for the flight (Figure 5 shows displaying traffic data);
and highlighting the flight on the user interface based on detection of a change in the progress of the flight, wherein a highlight color indicates a delay of the flight (paragraph 0028 "For example, flights which are early or have been delayed may appear in a distinctive manner, highlighted in green or red for example").
Hansen does not teach that the method further comprises: storing the first set of traffic data in a data store; receiving, from the traffic data provider, a second set of traffic data for the flight, wherein the second set of traffic data is received at a later time than the first set of traffic data; and monitoring a progress of the flight by comparing the first and second sets of traffic data.
Cardi teaches that the method further comprises:
storing the first set of traffic data in a data store (Figure 3 310 discloses storing an initial ETA);
receiving a second set of traffic data for the flight (Figure 4A 406 discloses determining an updated ETA), wherein the second set of traffic data is received at a later time than the first set of traffic data (column 9 lines 41-57 discloses obtaining updated ETA periodically throughout traveling indicating that the updated ETA is later and more recent than the initial ETA); and
monitoring a progress of the flight by comparing the first and second sets of traffic data (Figure 4A 408 discloses comparing a difference between the updated and initial ETAs compared to a delay threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Cardi such that trip ETA data received at different times of a trip as detailed in Cardi may be received from an airline processor containing flight information as taught by Hansen wherein said data can be compared to determine a change in the trip progress as taught by Cardi wherein any delayed flights can be highlighted according to Hansen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of progress change determination and reduce processing time needed to determine that an aircraft progress is changed by determining change based on ETA change.
Hansen does not teach that the first set of traffic data and the second set of traffic data further comprise a registration number for an aircraft operating the flight; and determining, based on the registration number for the aircraft, that a linking flight is scheduled for the aircraft operating the flight.
Johnson teaches that the first set of traffic data and the second set of traffic data further comprise a registration number for an aircraft operating the flight (paragraph 0169 discloses scheduled flights include aircraft tail numbers; see also paragraph 0170-0171 where flight schedule can indicate historic or forecasted flights and be dynamically modified); and determining, based on the registration number for the aircraft, that a linking flight is scheduled for the aircraft operating the flight (paragraph 0181 discloses determining if a next flight in a schedule for a given aircraft number is a future flight).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Johnson such that linking flight delay can be determined using the teachings of the combination of Hansen and Cardi following determining linking flights using the aircraft number based schedule lookup of Johnson. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of scheduling problems and improve response time to delay being propagated to a linking flight by tracking a chain of scheduled flights.
Hansen does not teach that the first set of traffic data comprises a flight taxi time and that monitoring the progress of the linking flight comprises: calculating a turnaround time for the linking flight based on the flight taxi time and the second set of traffic data.
Fleurquin teaches that the first set of traffic data comprises a flight taxi time (Figure S3 shows taxi-in time as a part of a flight's itinerary information which ends at the flight arrival time) and that monitoring the progress of the linking flight comprises: calculating a turnaround time for the linking flight based on the flight taxi time and the second set of traffic data (Figure S3 shows that turn-around time is the time between taxi-in end time and taxi-out start time; here, taxi-in end time is a summation of wheels on time (i.e. ETA) and a taxi-in time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Fleurquin such that the first set of traffic data can further include scheduled taxi-in time which can then be utilized in determining a turnaround time as taught by Fleurquin utilizing the updated ETA data of Cardi. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking and monitoring of flight schedules by tracking turnaround time.
Hansen does not teach comparing the turnaround time to a threshold and highlighting the linking flight on the user interface based on detection of a change in the progress of the flight, wherein a highlight color indicates a delay of the linking flight based on the turnaround time falling below the threshold.
Jamotta teaches comparing the turnaround time to a requirement and alerting a user when the turnaround time for the linking flight fails to meet a requirement (column 16 lines 18-33 disclose that a system can determine if a flight segment does not comply with a ground time requirement and alerting a user of the failure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Jamotta such that, upon the determination that a turnaround time fails to meet a requirement according to the teachings of Jamotta, the flight with the failing turnaround time is highlighted according to the teaching of Hansen to fulfill the requirement of alerting a user as taught by Jamotta. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency of flight scheduling and user awareness by alerting a user when a flight does not meet certain time constraints and further ensuring feasibility of performing various needed tasks within the available turnaround time.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach that the requirement is when the turnaround time for the linking flight falls below a defined threshold.
Heinold teaches comparing the turnaround time to a threshold and determining that the turnaround time for the linking flight falls below a defined threshold (column 22 lines 25-32 disclose various penalties for scheduling including a determination that a turnaround time falls below a minimum threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Heinold. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the minimum turnaround threshold of Heinold for the generic requirement of Jamotta. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of determining that a turnaround time is undesirable/unfeasible renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
Hansen does not explicitly teach that the first set of traffic data is received at a first time when an aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the first set of traffic data further comprises a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight; the second set of traffic data is received at a second time when the aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the second set of traffic data further comprises a second estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight; and detection of the change in the progress of the flight further comprises determining that the second ETA is different than the first ETA.
Cardi further teaches that that the first set of traffic data is received at a first time when an aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the first set of traffic data further comprises a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight (Figure 3 308 discloses determining an initial ETA before reaching a destination);
the second set of traffic data is received at a second time when the aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the second set of traffic data further comprises a second estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight (Figure 4A 406 discloses determining an updated ETA before reaching a destination; column 9 lines 41-57 discloses obtaining updated ETA periodically throughout traveling indicating that the updated ETA is later and more recent than the initial ETA); and
detection of the change in the progress of the flight further comprises determining that the second ETA is different than the first ETA (Figure 4A 408 discloses comparing a difference between the updated and initial ETAs to a delay threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Cardi with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of delay determination and reduce processing time needed to determine that an aircraft is delayed by determining delay based on ETA change.
Regarding claims 4 and 21, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above. Hansen further teaches that the first set of traffic data for the flight further comprises at least one of:
a flight identification number for the flight;
a call sign for the flight;
an arrival airport of the flight (Figure 4 "arrival airport");
a departure airport of the flight (Figure 4 "departure airport");
a date of the flight;
an estimated off-block time (EOBT);
an estimated take-off time (ETOT) (Figure 4 "departure time"; examiner interprets this as either applicable to estimated or actual time since, from context of paragraphs 0002-0003, the system of Hansen is meant to be used by a user to determine timeliness of a flight and/or allow for reservation making);
an estimated time of arrival (ETA) (Figure 4 "arrival time"; examiner interprets this as either applicable to estimated or actual time since, from context of paragraphs 0002-0003, the system of Hansen is meant to be used by a user to determine timeliness of a flight and/or allow for reservation making);
an actual take-off time (ATOT) (Figure 4 "departure time"; examiner interprets this as either applicable to estimated or actual time since, from context of paragraphs 0002-0003, the system of Hansen is meant to be used by a user to determine timeliness of a flight and/or allow for reservation making);
an actual time of arrival (ATA) (Figure 4 "arrival time"; examiner interprets this as either applicable to estimated or actual time since, from context of paragraphs 0002-0003, the system of Hansen is meant to be used by a user to determine timeliness of a flight and/or allow for reservation making); or
flight state information (paragraph 0028 "status column").
Hansen does not teach that the second set of traffic data for the flight comprises at least one of: a flight identification number for the flight; a call sign for the flight; a registration number for an aircraft associated with the flight; an arrival airport of the flight; a departure airport of the flight; a date of the flight; an estimated off-block time (EOBT); an estimated take-off time (ETOT); an estimated time of arrival (ETA); an actual take-off time (ATOT); an actual time of arrival (ATA); or flight state information.
Cardi further teaches that that the second set of traffic data for the flight comprises at least one of: an estimated time of arrival (ETA) (Figure 3 308 discloses determining an ETA).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Cardi such that the ETA of Hansen can be repeatably received as taught by Cardi since it has been held that merely duplicating known elements without new and unexpected results caused by the duplication involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) and the court cases cited therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ease of replicating similar data types of the second data set with a reasonable expectation of success to track the evolution of ETA throughout the vehicle’s journey.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above.
Hansen does not teach that the linking flight is scheduled to depart subsequent to an arrival of the flight and is operationally linked to the flight for aircraft allocation.
Johnson further teaches that the linking flight is scheduled to depart subsequent to an arrival of the flight and is operationally linked to the flight for aircraft allocation (paragraph 0181 discloses that a future flight occurs with the same aircraft number at a future time when the aircraft is confirmed safe to fly after arrival from a previous flight).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Johnson such that linking flight delay can be determined using the teachings of the combination of Hansen and Cardi following determining linking flights using the aircraft number based schedule lookup of Johnson. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of scheduling problems and improve response time to delay being propagated to a linking flight by tracking a chain of scheduled flights.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above.
Hansen does not teach receiving additional traffic data for the flight.
Cardi further teaches receiving additional traffic data for the flight (column 9 lines 41-57 discloses obtaining updated ETA periodically throughout traveling; any updated ETA received after an initial period can be interpreted as additional traffic data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Cardi such that ETA can be periodically updated as taught by Cardi. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of flight timing and to improve accuracy of flight monitoring by maintaining up-to-date ETAs.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach updating the turnaround time for the linking flight using the additional traffic data for the flight.
Fleurquin further teaches updating the turnaround time for the linking flight using the additional traffic data for the flight (Figure S3 shows that turn-around time is the time between taxi-in end time and taxi-out start time; here, taxi-in end time is a summation of wheels on time (i.e. ETA) and a taxi-in time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Fleurquin such that the updated ETA of Cardi can be plugged into the equation for calculating turnaround time as taught by Fleurquin. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user awareness of flight timing and to improve accuracy of flight monitoring by maintaining up-to-date turnaround time.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as modified by Cardi, Johnson, Fleurquin, Jamotta, and Heinold as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Misu et al. US 20230326348 A1 (hereinafter Misu).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above.
Hansen does not explicitly teach that the first set of traffic data is received at a first time when an aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the first set of traffic data further comprises a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight.
Cardi teaches that the first set of traffic data is received at a first time when an aircraft associated with the flight has not landed, and the first set of traffic data further comprises a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the flight (Figure 3 308 discloses determining an initial ETA before reaching a destination).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Cardi. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the explicit estimated arrival time of Cardi for the more generic arrival time of Hansen. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The modified Hansen does not teach that the second set of traffic data is received at a second time when the aircraft associated with the flight has already landed, and the second set of traffic data further comprises an actual time of arrival (ATA); and detection of the change in the progress of the flight further comprises determining that the ATA is different than the first ETA.
Misu teaches that the second set of traffic data is received at a second time when the aircraft associated with the flight has already landed, and the second set of traffic data further comprises an actual time of arrival (ATA) (paragraph 0094 discloses acquiring arrival time for when a vehicle has reached its destination); and detection of the change in the progress of the flight further comprises determining that the ATA is different than the first ETA (paragraphs 0094-0095 discloses determining a difference between an ETA and actual arrival time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Misu such that an ATA can be compared with an ETA to determine a difference between the two as taught by Misu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of delay determination by also utilizing actual arrival time.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above. Hansen further teaches updating the user interface to display the second set of traffic data for the flight (paragraph 0011 discloses updating a display automatically with most recent information; paragraph 0022 discloses processing updated flight information before display).
Hansen does not teach updating the data store to store the second set of traffic data for the flight.
Misu further teaches updating the data store to store the second set of traffic data for the flight (paragraph 0095 discloses storing actual arrival time in memory).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Misu such that an ATA can be stored as taught by Misu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of a stored record and allow for future examination of historic information that may be utilized in improving flight scheduling, delay determination, or delay mitigation in the future.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as modified by Cardi, Johnson, Fleurquin, Jamotta, and Heinold as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. JP 2015090510 A (hereinafter Hasegawa; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
The modified Hansen reference does not explicitly teach receiving traffic data for the linking flight.
Hasegawa teaches receiving traffic data for the linking flight (Abstract discloses calculating off block time for arriving aircraft).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Hasegawa with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking of flight schedules by tracking off block time.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach that calculating the turnaround time for the linking flight is further based on a comparison between the traffic data for the linking flight and the second set of traffic data for the flight.
Fleurquin further teaches that calculating the turnaround time for the linking flight is further based on a comparison between the traffic data for the linking flight and the second set of traffic data for the flight (Figure S3 shows that turn-around time is the time between taxi-in end time and taxi-out start time; here, taxi-in end time is a summation of wheels on time (i.e. ETA) and a taxi-in time; examiner interprets tax-out start time as equivalent to "off block time").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Fleurquin with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking of flight schedules by tracking turnaround time.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as modified by Cardi, Johnson, Fleurquin, Jamotta, Heinold, and Hasegawa as applied to claims 6 and 17 above, and further in view of Misu.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claims 6 and 17 as detailed above.
Hansen does not teach that the second set of traffic data for the flight is received at a second time when an aircraft associated with the flight has already landed, and the second set of traffic data for the flight further comprises an actual time of arrival (ATA) of the flight.
Misu further teaches that the second set of traffic data for the flight is received at a second time when an aircraft associated with the flight has already landed, and the second set of traffic data for the flight further comprises an actual time of arrival (ATA) of the flight (paragraph 0094 discloses acquiring arrival time for when a vehicle has reached its destination)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Misu with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of delay determination by also utilizing actual arrival time.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach that the traffic data for the linking flight comprises an estimated off-block time (EOBT) of the linking flight.
Hasegawa further teaches that the traffic data for the linking flight comprises an estimated off-block time (EOBT) of the linking flight (Abstract discloses calculating off block time for arriving aircraft).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Hasegawa with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking of flight schedules by tracking off block time.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach calculating the turnaround time for the linking flight is further based on a difference between the EOBT of the linking flight and the ATA of the flight.
Fleurquin further teaches calculating the turnaround time for the linking flight is further based on a difference between the EOBT of the linking flight and the ATA of the flight (Figure S3 shows that turn-around time is the time between taxi-in end time and taxi-out start time; here, taxi-in end time is a summation of wheels on time (i.e. ATA) and a taxi-in time; examiner interprets tax-out start time as equivalent to "off block time").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the further teachings of Fleurquin with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of tracking of flight schedules by tracking turnaround time.
Claim(s) 9 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen as modified by Cardi, Johnson, Fleurquin, Jamotta, and Heinold as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Joyson et al. US 20180018882 A1 (hereinafter Joyson) and Gonzalez et al. US 20200377232 A1 (hereinafter Gonzalez).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, the modified Hansen reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Hansen does not teach updating the user interface to display the turnaround time for the linking flight.
Joyson teaches updating the user interface to display the turnaround time for the linking flight (paragraph 0020 discloses displaying turnaround time for flights).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Joyson with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user knowledgeability of flight status and user experience by displaying turnaround time.
The modified Hansen reference does not teach updating the data store to store the turnaround time for the linking flight.
Gonzalez teaches updating the data store to store the turnaround time for the linking flight (paragraph 0012 discloses storing turnaround data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansen to incorporate the teachings of Gonzalez with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of a stored record by saving estimated turnaround time and allow for future examination of historic information that may be utilized in improving flight scheduling, delay determination, or delay mitigation in the future.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 7/9/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/9/2026. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12-13, applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite a mental process but rather a specific technical improvement. Specifically, applicant argues that “a human mind cannot practically perform the claimed steps of receiving, storing, and updating traffic data, much less the claimed turnaround time calculations recited in claim 1” and that “By expressly claiming ‘a flight tracking system’ and ‘a user interface,’ the claims are tethered to specific computer technology that cannot be executed in the human mind.”
Examiner kindly reminds that applicant that the receiving and storing steps as claimed are understood as mere insignificant extra pre solution activities of the WURC activity of mere data retrieval and storage in memory as detailed in the 101 rejection above and as detailed in the Office Action dated 4/9/2026. Furthermore, the updating steps are a mere insignificant extra pre and post solution activity of the WURC activity of mere display. While data retrieval, storage, and display are not considered part of the abstract idea, they do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application as they are WURC insignificant extra solution activities. See § MPEP 2106.07(a)(II) for more details.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the turnaround time calculations cannot be performed in the human mind, applicant is kindly reminded of the current claim language: “calculating a turnaround time for the linking flight based on the flight taxi time and the second set of traffic data”. As shown in the prior art (see Fleurquin as cited above), turnaround taxi time “based on the flight taxi time and the second set of traffic data” may be as simple as a mere subtraction of two timestamps. Humans are more than adequately adept to mentally perform subtraction or, if preferred, perform simple subtraction with pen and paper. Thus, the calculations as claimed are broadly and reasonably understood as encompassing very simple calculations that can easily be mentally performed, and therefore the argument that they cannot be performed in the human mind without articulated evidence as to why they cannot be mentally calculated cannot be considered persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the abstract idea is implemented with a specific computer, applicant is kindly reminded that the user interface is generically claimed. That is, the user interface is given no more detail than that it is used to display data. No resolution, processing power, memory size, portability, size, shape, form, etc. of the user interface is described such that it can be considered as nothing more than a generic element applied to the invention to perform the WURC activity of mere display. Similarly, the flight tracking system is generically claimed. No structural components of the flight tracking system are provided such that it can be feasibly understood as a software or hardware system. Since the flight tracking system does not invoke 112(f) (due to not having an associated function), the flight tracking system is claimed extremely broadly and thus similarly acts as a generically claimed element to apply the abstract idea. Generic elements cannot be considered as implementing the abstract idea into a practical application.
On pages 13-14, applicant further argues that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as it automates flight monitoring to improve efficiency of personnel managing flight operations such that changes to a flight schedule can be automatically detected and highlighted. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the claimed invention features an improvement. As claimed, the abstract idea may, if performed manually rather than automatically, not necessarily be performed by a flight management operator. Instead, the method may simply be performed by a random citizen with access to flight schedule data that is commonly publicly provided. Therefore, needs to free up personnel headspace to improve efficiency of flight management personnel only understands the invention from an inappropriately narrow view wherein a user of a user interface is inappropriately and narrowly interpreted as flight management personnel. Instead, the invention may also be incorporated to provide data to the public. A mere automation in a task in and of itself as recited in this case thus cannot be considered a significant improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) for example which recites an example court case Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) that indicated that merely automating a previously manual process is not considered a significant improvement. The invention as claimed merely performs simple calculations on received data, determines that a flight is delayed based on the calculations, and highlights a delayed flight. Nothing in the claimed invention significantly improves the functioning of a computer either with software or hardware such that the abstract idea can be considered sufficiently incorporated into a practical application. Thus, the arguments are unpersuasive, and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed 7/9/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hansen, Johnson, Cardi, Fleurquin, Jamotta, and Heinold.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wan et al. CN 116168566 A discloses that the registration number for a pre-order flight and a subsequent flight should be the same.
Zhang et al. CN 113139703 A discloses performing a flight recovery for a delayed flight based on the flight having a subsequent flight wherein subsequent flights and delayed flights share the same aircraft tail number.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights