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 30 of July 2025.
Claims 1-6 and 9-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the amended claims go beyond mere methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. In that regard, the human mind could not determine an occupancy of each of the plurality of seats using a first plurality of monitoring devices comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, each pressure sensor being located in a respective seat". The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is conflating the steps within the Alice Test. Under Step 2A Prong I, the examiner determines whether the claim language is an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception). Under BRI, the invention is aimed at boarding a plurality of passengers onto an aircraft, the aircraft having a plurality of seats. A human can observe and mentally count or with the aid of pen and paper count the number of seats and board passengers to their respective seats until boarding is deemed complete. The human is able to perform a walkthrough and compare seat occupancy to a manifesto in order to ensure boarding is complete. 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.
Applicant asserts that Example 2 of the USPTO's 101 Examples illustrates a system that is "useful in outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities," but is directed to automatically generating and transmitting a web page in response to activation of a link using data identified with a source web page having certain visually perceptible elements. The claim does not recite a mathematical algorithm; nor does it recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. The claim addresses a business challenge (retaining website visitors) that is particular to the Internet, similar to those in the instant application. Further, the instant claims differs from other claims found by the courts to recite abstract ideas in that it does not merely recite the performance of some business practice and cannot be performed in the human mind. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in boarding systems. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examples 1-36 were issued prior to the June 2020 revision to MPEP 2106. For these examples, the Step 2A Prong One analysis in MPEP 2106 will differ from the analysis presented in the issued examples for those claims that were identified as reciting abstract ideas. For example, the rationale for why a recited concept is an abstract idea would point to one or more of the abstract idea groupings in MPEP 2106(a)(2) when explaining why the concept is abstract, instead of relying on a direct comparison between a claimed concept and the concepts in one or more judicial decisions. Additionally, the instant application is not rooted in computer technology since boarding airplanes have been done long before the advent of computers and the internet and remains an abstract idea for the reasons cited above.
Applicant asserts that similar to the claims in Thales Visionix, amended independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a specific improvement in another technology or technical field, specifically a boarding system for boarding a plurality of passengers onto an aircraft. Amended independent claims 1 and 9 include elements that provide specific improvements to other technologies or technical fields, and, therefore, support a conclusion that amended independent claims 1 and 9 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Thales were found to be eligible because the unconventional use of sensors led the Court to conclude that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Thales includes a first sensor on a “tracked object,” a second sensor on a “moving reference frame,” and an “element” that receives signals from both sensors and determines an orientation of the tracked object relative to the moving reference frame, then adding a limitation that recites the user of two types of sensors will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Thales, the claim does not recite an abstract idea because it describes an improvement upon the prior methods of using sensors to track objects in order to demined an orientation of the tracked object relative to the moving reference. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained. The examiner notes that there is no specificity on how the system analyzes the sensor data in order to perform the boarding of the aircraft. Under BRI, the sensors could trigger an output on a screen or a green/red light system to alert airline agents to either speed up or slow down the boarding process. Therefore, mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, the examiner adds that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1 and 9 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Particularly, “wherein the scheduling system is configured to increase or decrease time intervals between boarding of the next group and the respective previous group in the predetermined boarding sequence based on the determined occupancies of the plurality of seats on the aircraft and the determined occupancy of the one or more aisle or boarding tunnel received from the passenger monitoring system”. Therefore pending claims 1-15 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites “a passenger monitoring system comprising; a first plurality of monitoring devices, the first plurality of monitoring devices being configured to determine an occupancy of each of the plurality of seats, wherein the first plurality of monitoring devices comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, each pressure sensor being located in a respective seat; and a second plurality of monitoring devices, the second plurality of monitoring devices being configured to determine the occupancy of each of the plurality of seats and to determine an occupancy of one or more aisle or boarding tunnel; and a scheduling system configured to control a boarding schedule, the boarding schedule assigning each seat to one of a plurality of groups of seats, and comprising a pre-determined boarding sequence for the plurality of groups of seats, wherein each group in the boarding sequence is separated from a respective previous group by a predetermined time interval; wherein the scheduling system is configured to increase or decrease time intervals between boarding of the next group and the respective previous group in the predetermined boarding sequence based on the determined occupancies of the plurality of seats on the aircraft and the determined occupancy of the one or more aisle or boarding tunnel received from the passenger monitoring system”. Claim 9 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 9 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 2-8 and 10-15 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 1 and 9 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 1 and 9 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 12, and 14 recite additional elements “optical sensors”, “ultrasonic sensors”, “an airline database”, and “a mobile device”. 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. 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 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14 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 ¶52-54 "In order to optimize the boarding process, the passenger monitoring system 120 is configured to determine an occupancy of each of the plurality of seats 4 and/or to determine an occupancy of one or more aisle 12 or boarding tunnel 14. Accordingly, each of the aircraft seat monitoring subsystem 120a, aircraft aisle monitoring subsystem 120b and boarding bridge monitoring subsystem 120c comprise one or more monitoring devices, the monitoring device(s) being configured for identifying the presence of a passenger and therefore determine an occupancy of the relevant area/subsystem. For instance, as shown in Figure 2, the aircraft seat monitoring subsystem 120a comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, each pressure sensor located in a respective/associated seat. Each pressure sensor is configured to determine if a passenger is sat in the seat in which it is installed, e.g. by detecting a force applied to the seat by the weight of a passenger”.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 15 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated 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 9/12/2025