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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Under Step 2A Prong 1, the Examiner alleges that the recitation of "identifying an updated recommended management plan" in each independent claim constitutes an abstract idea based on "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" related to "managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals." While Applicant disagrees with the Examiner, for the purposes of advancing prosecution the claims have been amended to no longer recite this limitation. As such, the independent claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that even though argued limitation has been removed from the claims, the claims are still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” As can be seen below, the claims recite several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. These limitations describe identifying a recommended management plan based on information related to a disruption in operations. See Step 2A, Prong 1 below.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Considering MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) provides that "managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals" includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, the limitations above, which describe the user interface and include steps completed by a processor, do not fall within the "managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals" subgrouping.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant’s identified limitations are part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. While the claims describe a display region, the display comprises abstract information that, but for the recitation of the display, are part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. These limitations merely describe features associated with the displayed chart. These static features, whether linked to a display on a computer or drawn by pencil and paper, are not additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Regardless and in an effort to advance prosecution, claims 11 and 19 have been amended to recite "automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value" to better clarify the improvement to the graphical user interface. As such, amended claims 11 and 19 and their dependent claims (i.e., claims 13, 15, 28, 22-23, and 30) integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore patent eligible under Step 2A Prong 2.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application or anything significantly more. This limitation, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recites generating a preview of a change to a display region. The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph, and then update the display to the user. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s assertions in view of this function being performed “automatically,” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 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 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28, and 30-42 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11, 13-14, and 28 are directed to a method, claims 15-16 and 31-32 are directed to a method, claims 17 and 33-34 are directed to a method, claims 18 and 35-36 are directed to a method, claims 19, 22-23, and 30 are directed to a system, claims 21, 24, and 37-38 are directed to a system, claims 25 and 39-40 are directed to a system, and claims 26 and 41-42 are directed to a system. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 recite outputting a recommended management plan, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals. The independent claims recite limitations including “receiving, transportation-related data associated with a plurality of travel legs; wherein each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs is associated with a departure station and a destination station; and wherein the transportation-related data comprises: travel leg data for each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs; and crew data for each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs; identifying, a disruption to operations of the plurality of travel legs; generating, based on the transportation-related data, a network model; identifying, based on the transportation-related data and using the network model, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption, wherein the recommended management plan comprises strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs; outputting, at least a portion of the recommended management plan that comprises the strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and the strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs; wherein the transportation-related data further comprises a constraint value.” Claims 11 and 19 further recite the abstract limitation of “wherein the transportation-related data further comprises the constraint value; a first line-extending parallel to the vertical axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time, and a plurality of bars representing a number of arrivals over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along the time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a value of a number of arrivals in that time period; wherein a portion of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future time periods; wherein a second line extends parallel to the horizontal time axis and perpendicular to the vertical axis at a position representing the constraint value; wherein the second line is positioned over a portion of the future time periods and extends parallel to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; determining, that the second line moved along the vertical axis; changing, the constraint value to the received constraint value based on the determination that the second line moved along the vertical axis.” Claims 15 and 21 further recite the abstract limitation of “wherein the transportation-related data further comprises: gate capacity for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; wherein the gate capacity for the station is a number of gates that are available at the station; and a first gate demand threshold that is associated with a first type of delay; wherein a portion of the first plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future projected demand for gates; and wherein the second line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars; determining, that the second line moved along the demand axis; changing, the first gate demand threshold to the received first gate demand threshold based on the determination that the second line moved along the demand axis.” Claims 17 and 25 further recite the abstract limitation of “wherein the transportation-related data further comprises: an arrival rate constraint value for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; and a flight arrival capacity for the station; wherein receiving, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises; wherein a portion of the plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future total projected flight arrival values; and wherein the first line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars; determining, that the thickness of the first line was adjusted; changing, the arrival rate constraint value to the received arrival rate constraint value based on the determination that the thickness of the first line was adjusted.” Claims 18 and 26 further recite the abstract limitation of “wherein the transportation-related data further comprises: a departure rate constraint value for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; and a flight departure capacity for the station; wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises; wherein a portion of the plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future total projected flight departure value; and wherein the first line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars; determining, that the thickness of the first line was adjusted; changing, the departure rate constraint value to the received departure rate constraint value based on the determination that the thickness of the first line was adjusted.” The above cited abstract limitations of the independent claims, as drafted, but for the language of “using the computer,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the computer,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the computer” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea related to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” including managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals. Therefore, independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 recite abstract limitations.
Dependent claims 13-14, 22-23, and 31-42 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 16, 24, 28, and 30 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 11, 15, 17, and 18 recite a method performed “using a computer.” Claims 19, 21, 25, and 26 recite a system comprising “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions, wherein the instructions are executed with one or more processors so that following steps are executed,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 further recite the additional element of “outputting, on a user interface of the computer, at least a portion of the recommended management plan.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive or display) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 11 further recites the additional element of “receiving instructions to change the constraint value via a display region on the user interface, wherein the display region on the user interface comprises a line chart with a horizontal time axis representing a time period and a vertical axis representing constraint values, wherein a second line extends parallel to the horizontal time axis and perpendicular to the vertical axis at a position representing the constraint value; wherein the second line is positioned over a portion of the future time periods and extends parallel to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the second line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; wherein the movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis comprises moving the second line along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods while retaining the thickness of the second line; wherein the instructions to change the constraint value are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 15 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the first gate demand threshold; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a third line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the first gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line along the demand axis and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 17 further recites the additional element of “displaying, in a flight arrival display region of the user interface, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight arrivals at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight arrival value in that time period; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight arrival capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the arrival rate constraint value; and wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the arrival rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value via the flight arrival display region, wherein the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 18 further recites the additional element of “displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight departure capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the departure rate constraint value; wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the departure rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the departure rate constraint value via the flight departure display region, wherein the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 19 further recites the additional element of “receiving instructions to change the constraint value via a display region on the user interface, wherein the display region on the user interface comprises a line chart with a horizontal time axis representing a time period and a vertical axis representing constraint values, wherein a second line extends parallel to the horizontal time axis and perpendicular to the vertical axis at a position representing the constraint value; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the instructions to change the constraint value are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis; wherein the second line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; wherein the movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis comprises moving the second line along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods while retaining the thickness of the second line; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 21 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the first gate demand threshold; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a third line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the first gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line along the demand axis and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the first gate demand threshold and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 25 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying, in a flight arrival display region of the user interface, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight arrivals at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight arrival value in that time period; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight arrival capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the arrival rate constraint value; and wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the arrival rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value via the flight arrival display region, wherein the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 26 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight departure capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the departure rate constraint value; wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the departure rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the departure rate constraint value via the flight departure display region, wherein the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the departure rate constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 13-14, 22-23, and 31-42 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 16 recites the additional element, similarly recited in claim 24, of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs further comprises: displaying, in the gate demand display region of the user interface, a fourth line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line- positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the second gate demand threshold; wherein the fourth line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; and receiving instructions to change the second gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the second gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the fourth line along the demand axis.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 28 recites the additional element of “wherein the first line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis comprises an adjustment of the thickness of the first line.” Dependent claim 30 recites the additional element of “wherein the first line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis comprises an adjustment of the thickness of the first line.” These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than narrowing the details regarding the displayed chart. The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claims 11, 15, 17, and 18 recite a method performed “using a computer.” Claims 19, 21, 25, and 26 recite a system comprising “a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions, wherein the instructions are executed with one or more processors so that following steps are executed,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Independent claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 further recite the additional element of “outputting, on a user interface of the computer, at least a portion of the recommended management plan.” Using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea, or using the phrase “apply it” (or an equivalent) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 11 further recites the additional element of “receiving instructions to change the constraint value via a display region on the user interface, wherein the display region on the user interface comprises a line chart with a horizontal time axis representing a time period and a vertical axis representing constraint values, wherein a second line extends parallel to the horizontal time axis and perpendicular to the vertical axis at a position representing the constraint value; wherein the second line is positioned over a portion of the future time periods and extends parallel to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the second line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; wherein the movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis comprises moving the second line along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods while retaining the thickness of the second line; wherein the instructions to change the constraint value are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 15 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the first gate demand threshold; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a third line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the first gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line along the demand axis and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 17 further recites the additional element of “displaying, in a flight arrival display region of the user interface, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight arrivals at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight arrival value in that time period; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight arrival capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the arrival rate constraint value; and wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the arrival rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value via the flight arrival display region, wherein the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 18 further recites the additional element of “displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight departure capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the departure rate constraint value; wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the departure rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the departure rate constraint value via the flight departure display region, wherein the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 19 further recites the additional element of “receiving instructions to change the constraint value via a display region on the user interface, wherein the display region on the user interface comprises a line chart with a horizontal time axis representing a time period and a vertical axis representing constraint values, wherein a second line extends parallel to the horizontal time axis and perpendicular to the vertical axis at a position representing the constraint value; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods; wherein the instructions to change the constraint value are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis; wherein the second line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; wherein the movement of the second line relative to the vertical axis comprises moving the second line along the vertical axis and relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods while retaining the thickness of the second line; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 21 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the first gate demand threshold; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a third line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the first gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line along the demand axis and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the first gate demand threshold and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 25 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying, in a flight arrival display region of the user interface, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight arrivals at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight arrival value in that time period; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight arrival capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the arrival rate constraint value; and wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the arrival rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value via the flight arrival display region, wherein the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Independent claim 26 further recites the additional element of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight departure capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the departure rate constraint value; wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the departure rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the departure rate constraint value via the flight departure display region, wherein the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides an input mechanism on the user interface that provides instructions to change the departure rate constraint value and a visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 13-14, 22-23, and 31-42 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 16 recites the additional element, similarly recited in claim 24, of “wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs further comprises: displaying, in the gate demand display region of the user interface, a fourth line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line- positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the second gate demand threshold; wherein the fourth line is grabbable and movable along the demand axis; and receiving instructions to change the second gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the second gate demand threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the fourth line along the demand axis.” The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 28 recites the additional element of “wherein the first line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis comprises an adjustment of the thickness of the first line.” Dependent claim 30 recites the additional element of “wherein the first line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis comprises an adjustment of the thickness of the first line.” These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than narrowing the details regarding the displayed chart. The additional elements of these claims including display abstract information related to a graph and receiving an instruction, by a user, to select and move a line on the graph. These additional elements, as drafted, are nothing more than use of a computer as a tool by a user. The additional elements of the claim, such as display information and receiving a user input on the screen, are recited at a high level of generality and generic computer function such that it amounts to no more than merely using the computer as a tool. The computer is nothing more than a tool to display and manipulate data, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the graphical user interface of a computer, which does not improve the graphical user interface itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28, and 30-42 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent 11, 15, 17-19, 21, 25, and 26 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Salam et al. (US 10395197 B1) discloses receiving, using a computer, transportation-related data associated with a plurality of travel legs; wherein each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs is associated with a departure station and a destination station; and wherein the transportation-related data comprises: travel leg data for each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs; and crew data for each travel leg in the plurality of travel legs; identifying, using the computer, a disruption to operations of the plurality of travel legs; identifying, based on the transportation-related data, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption, wherein the recommended management plan comprises strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs; outputting, on a user interface of the computer, at least a portion of the recommended management plan that comprises the strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and the strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs; wherein the transportation-related data further comprises a constraint value; receiving instructions to change the constraint value via a display region on the user interface. Salam further discloses the user interface is capable of receiving instructions to change parameters related to the flight plan including gate demand, departures, and arrivals, wherein the user can enter departure delay adjustments, gate capacity, and arrival delay adjustments via a graphical user interface. Additionally, with respect to claims 15 and 21, Salam discloses wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station wherein a portion of the first plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future projected demand for gates; and wherein the second line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars. Additionally, with respect to claims 17 and 25, Salam discloses wherein the transportation-related data further comprises: an arrival rate constraint value for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; and a flight arrival capacity for the station; wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying, in a flight arrival display region of the user interface, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight arrivals at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight arrival value in that time period; wherein a portion of the plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future total projected flight arrival values; and wherein the first line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars. Additionally, with respect to claims 18 and 26, Salam discloses wherein the transportation-related data further comprises: a departure rate constraint value for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; and a flight departure capacity for the station; wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period; wherein a portion of the plurality of bars that are positioned to the right of the first line are future bars associated with future total projected flight departure value; and wherein the first line is positioned over a portion of the future bars and extends parallel to the heights of the future bars.
However, Salam fails to explicitly disclose generating, using the computer and based on the transportation-related data, a network model; identifying, using the network model, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption. Additionally, with respect to claims 11 and 19, Salam fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first line is grabbable and movable along the vertical axis; wherein the instructions to change the constraint value are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis; wherein the first line has a thickness measured relative to the vertical axis; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the vertical axis comprises moving the first line along the vertical axis while retaining the thickness of the first line; determining, that the first line moved along the vertical axis; changing, the constraint value to the received constraint value based on the determination that the first line moved along the vertical axis; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the bars associated with the future time periods, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the constraint value. Additionally, with respect to claims 15 and 21, Salam fails to explicitly disclose displaying, in the gate demand display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the first gate demand threshold; wherein the second line is selectable and movable along the demand axis and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a third line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the first gate demand threshold via the gate demand display region, wherein the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold are received in response to the selection and movement of the second line along the demand axis; determining, by a processor, that the second line moved along the demand axis; automatically, and in response to the movement of the second line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the first gate demand threshold; changing, by the processor, the first gate demand threshold to the received first gate demand threshold based on the determination that the second line moved along the demand axis. Additionally, with respect to claims 17 and 25, Salam fails to explicitly disclose displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight arrival capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the arrival rate constraint value; and wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the arrival rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight arrival display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value via the flight arrival display region, wherein the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line; determining, by a processor, that the thickness of the first line was adjusted; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the arrival rate constraint value; changing, by the processor, the arrival rate constraint value to the received arrival rate constraint value based on the determination that the thickness of the first line was adjusted. Additionally, with respect to claims 18 and 26, Salam fails to explicitly disclose displaying, in the flight departure display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the flight departure capacity for the station over the period of time; wherein the first line has a thickness that represents the departure rate constraint value; wherein the first line is grabbable so that the thickness is adjustable to indicate a change in the departure rate constraint value; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a second line-extending parallel to the demand axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the departure rate constraint value via the flight departure display region, wherein the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value are received in response to the grabbing of the first line and the adjustment of the thickness of the first line and relative to the heights of the future bars; and wherein the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars provides the input mechanism on the user interface that provides the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value and the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; determining, by a processor, that the thickness of the first line was adjusted; automatically, and in response to the movement of the first line relative to the heights of the future bars, providing the visual preview of the effects of the instructions to change the departure rate constraint value; changing, by the processor, the departure rate constraint value to the received departure rate constraint value based on the determination that the thickness of the first line was adjusted.
Petersen et al. (US 20160335567 A1) discloses generating, using the computer and based on the transportation-related data, a network model; identifying, based on the transportation-related data and using the network model, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption, wherein the recommended management plan comprises strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs. However, Petersen fails to explicitly disclose
the display limitations of claims 15, 17-19, and 25-26.
Beynel et al. (US 20230196137 A1) discloses evaluating the disruption of a global flight network and the live data required to handle disruptions, as well as displaying, in the display region, a second line-extending parallel to the time axis and the first line-positioned perpendicular to the axis at a position representing the threshold; wherein the second line is grabbable and movable along the axis; displaying, in the display region, a third line-extending parallel to the axis-positioned perpendicular to the time axis at a position representing the current time; and receiving instructions to change the threshold via display region, wherein the instructions to change the threshold are received in response to the grabbing and movement of the second line along the axis. However, Beynel fails to explicitly disclose generating, using the computer and based on the transportation-related data, a network model. Additionally, Petersen fails to explicitly disclose the particular display limitations of claims 11, 15, 17-19, and 25-26.
Niznik et al. (US 8615418 B1) discloses displaying a gate demand display region on the user interface; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first plurality of bars representing projected demand for gates at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within a period of time, and a height of each bar of the first plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected demand for gates in that time period; displaying, in the gate demand display region, a first line-extending parallel to the time axis-positioned perpendicular to the demand axis at a position representing the number of gates that are available at the station. However, Niznik fails to explicitly disclose generating, using the computer and based on the transportation-related data, a network model; identifying, based on the transportation-related data and using the network model, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption, wherein the recommended management plan comprises strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs and identifying, using the network model and the received changed constraint value, an updated recommended management plan. Additionally, Niznik fails to explicitly disclose the particular display limitations of claims 11, 15, 17-19, and 25-26.
Wang ‘575 et al. (US 20160055275 A1) discloses simulating the congested air traffic that leads to flight delays and cancellations in order to improve the flow of the airport through moving flights and increasing the capacity of the airport. Wang further discloses the transportation-related data comprises: a departure rate constraint value for a station that is a departure station and/or a destination station for any of the travel legs in the plurality of travel legs; and a flight departure capacity for the station; wherein receiving, using the computer, transportation-related data associated with the plurality of travel legs comprises: displaying a flight departure display region on the user interface; displaying, in the flight departure display region, a plurality of bars representing projected number of flight departures at the station over a period of time, wherein a width of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a time axis-represents a time period within the period of time, and a height of each bar of the plurality of bars-along a demand axis that is perpendicular to the time axis-represents a total projected flight departure value in that time period. However, Wang ‘575 fails to explicitly disclose generating, using the computer and based on the transportation-related data, a network model; identifying, based on the transportation-related data and using the network model, a recommended management plan for the identified disruption, wherein the recommended management plan comprises strategic travel leg delays for at least a portion of the travel legs and strategic travel leg cancellations for at least another portion of the travel legs. Additionally, Wang ‘575 fails to explicitly disclose the particular display limitations of claims 11, 15, 17-19, and 25-26.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miller (US 20080059273 A1) discloses generating graphs of expected passenger loading versus departure time, as well as a generating a display of a booking function curve
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights