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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 21, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 were amended in the reply filed July 21, 2025. Claims 8 and 9 were cancelled and claim 10 was added.
Priority
Application 18/442,983 was filed on February 15, 2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-052063 filed on March 28, 2023.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection to claims 1, 2, and 4-7 and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the processor, first user terminal, and second user terminal, along with their interactions, integrate the alleged abstract idea into practical application (Remarks p. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. the processor and terminals recited by the claims are generic computer systems and components described at a high-level of detail. Furthermore, they appear to be performing ordinary computer functions (i.e., sending and receiving data, performing calculations). As such, the processor, first user terminal, and second user terminal amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant next argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because the recited features regarding the arrangement of ground transportation make it “necessary to confirm the presence or absence of the appropriate ground mobile object in addition to the adjustment of the flight by adding the two execution processes described in paragraphs 0062 and 0063” (Remarks p. 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the features regarding ground transportation can be performed as a mental process. For example, a human can examine a bus schedule to determine if a particular bus will get a user to a departure point in time for the alternative flight. Examiner notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer where the mental process is performed on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the claims recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” separately from the mental process. As such, even if they did not recite a mental process, the claims would still recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the rejection is 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, 2, 4-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, transmits schedule information of the first user,
and acquires the schedule information of the first user, and recognizes a traveling plan of the first user, based on the schedule information on the first user;
obtains position detection information of the first user terminal based on GNSS data,
and transmits the position detection information, and recognizes a first user arrival time at a first point based on the GNSS data of the position detection information when the traveling plan includes traveling via a target flight from the first point to a second point, the first user arrival time being a time at which the first user arrives at the first point;
acquires ground transportation operation status information indicating operation status of a ground transportation that is available for traveling from the second point;
recognizes a target ground transportation, based on the traveling plan and the ground transportation operation status information, the target ground transportation being available over a traveling route from the second point to a destination in the traveling plan;
and when a wait time from the first user arrival time until a scheduled departure time of the target flight from the first point is a first predetermined time period or more:
acquires flight status information indicating a flight status of a flight from the first point to the second point, and checks, based on the flight status information, whether or not it is possible to arrange an alternative flight of the target flight for the second user who has booked use of the target flight,
when it is confirmed that it is possible to arrange the alternative flight for the second user, determines whether or not a ground transportation which can arrive earlier than scheduled arrival time, is available from the ground transportation operation status information, and when it is determined that ground transportation which can arrive earlier than the scheduled time is available, transmits, flight change confirmation information for inquiring whether or not to approve a flight change,
when flight change approval information for approving the flight change is received, transmits departure time moving-forward confirmation information, the departure time moving-forward confirmation information inquiring whether or not it is desired to move forward the scheduled departure time of the flight,
and arranges moving forward of the scheduled departure time of the target flight when departure time moving-forward request information is received, the departure time moving-forward request information being transmitted in response to reception of the departure time moving-forward confirmation information, the departure time moving-forward request information requesting moving forward of the scheduled departure time of the target flight,
wherein, when the flight change confirmation information is received from the processor, displays a desire confirmation, including information of the changed flight booking.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, coordinating flight times and ground transportation for customers is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes that claim 4 specifically recites the steps including “an additional fee to be incurred”, which clarifies such business relationship. As such, the limitations fall into certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to coordinate ground transportation, recognize an arrival time, determine if a wait time exceeds a predetermined time period, and move the departure time of a flight can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a processor, a first user terminal, and a second user terminal (including a display), a communication network, GNSS, and an associated ground transportation management system. These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 10, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2, 4-7, and 10 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding novelty/non-obviousness, all of the claims include the following limitations:
when a wait time from the first user arrival time until a scheduled departure time of the target flight from the first point is a first predetermined time period or more, the processor: acquires flight status information indicating a flight status of a flight from the first point to the second point, and checks, based on the flight status information, whether or not it is possible to arrange an alternative flight of the target flight for the second user who has booked use of the target flight,
when flight change approval information transmitted from the second user terminal for approving the flight change is received, transmits departure time moving forward confirmation information to the first user terminal, the departure time moving forward confirmation information inquiring whether or not it is desired to move forward the scheduled departure time of the flight
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0108235 to Schulz et al. (Schulz) teaches booking a second passenger on a later flight when a first passenger is predicted to wait over a threshold amount of time. Schultz also teaches that a user can confirm updates to an itinerary. However, Schultz does not teach moving the scheduled departure time of the target flight or that a second user confirms an alternative flight before asking the first user if they want to move forward the scheduled departure time of the target flight.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0228667 to Duschl et al. (Duschl) teaches rebooking a passenger on a later flight if their arrival is delayed. Duschl also teaches that a user and their companions can confirm changes prior to modifying their travel itineraries. However, Duschl does not teach, booking a second passenger on a later flight when a first passenger is predicted to wait over a threshold amount of time or moving the scheduled departure time of the target flight or that a second user confirms an alternative flight before asking the first user if they want to move forward the scheduled departure time of the target flight.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0032926 to DeLuca et al. (DeLuca) teaches booking an individual on an earlier flight when they arrive early and asking whether the user would like to accept the alternate route. However, DeLuca does not teach booking a second passenger on a later flight when a first passenger is predicted to wait over a threshold amount of time or moving the scheduled departure time of the target flight or that a second user confirms an alternative flight before asking the first user if they want to move forward the scheduled departure time of the target flight.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0198624 to Eagle III (Eagle) teaches that a plane can leave early if all passengers have arrived. However, Eagle does not teach, that users are asked to confirm the change before scheduling the early departure time or that a wait time is over a threshold amount of time.
NPL “Why would an aircraft take off earlier than the planned departure time?” (travel.stackexchange.com) teaches that a flight can leave early. However, travel.stackexchange.com does not teach booking a second passenger on a later flight when a first passenger is predicted to wait over a threshold amount of time or moving the scheduled departure time of the target flight or that a second user confirms an alternative flight before asking the first user if they want to move forward the scheduled departure time of the target flight.
As shown, none of the prior arts teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 10 are allowable over prior arts of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later that the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0304347 to Mueller et al. (Mueller) teaches systems and methods for systems and methods for generating potential flight plans to be used by a ride sharing network, including dynamic and/or automated changes to flight plans that have been engaged with passengers based on real-time information.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0053370 to Ogilvie (Ogilvie) teaches systems and methods for arranging ground transportation for a debarking air traveler based on a curb arrival time. The arrival estimation algorithm uses as an input at least one of the GPS coordinates, an aircraft landing signal, and a map of an arriving airport; and transmit the curb arrival time of the air traveler to at least one of a ride-sharing server and a driver client device.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 12,299,607 to Kirsanov (Kirsanov) teaches techniques and user interfaces for the creation of private jet segments. In one aspect, a method includes receiving a departure geographic identifier and a destination geographic identifier. A user interface is updated to present a first departure airport identifier for a first candidate departure airport, a first destination airport identifier for a first candidate destination airport, and one or more airport selection controls including, for each of one or more additional candidate airports, an airport selection control for selecting a corresponding additional candidate airport for the client-initiated segment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628