DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 4/21/2026. Currently claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-22 are pending and claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended from the previous claim set dated 1/7/2026. Claims 21, 22 have been newly added and no claims are newly cancelled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-22, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-4, 6, 7, 21, 22) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 8 and its dependent claims (claims 9-11, 13, 14) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 15 and its dependent claims (claims 16-18, 20) are directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to analyze and evaluate the refueling schedule/strategy for an airport. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that an operations manager performs at an airport. The abstract elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, recite in part “Receive data…Determine wait time…Display wait time…Match orders…Generate recommendations…Provide task…”. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18, 20-22 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Determine fueling time…Update weights…Orders include…Train network…Match orders…Generate updated schedule…Direct delivery truck…Include environmental conditions…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Dependent claims 7 and 14 do not include any limitations that are directed toward the abstract idea and will be addresses in either the Step 2A (Prong 2) or Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Predictive maintenance engine…Dataset ingestion module…database…trained neural network…Order interface…Processor…computer readable medium…Scheduler…User interface…Dispatcher…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20 add the additional element which recites in part “Geofencing analysis module…Neural network…Scheduler…Solver…Deep neural network…” which again limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is also insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3, 10, 17, 21, 22 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Predictive maintenance engine…Dataset ingestion module…database…trained neural network…Order interface…Processor…computer readable medium…Scheduler…User interface … Dispatcher…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (analyze and evaluate the refueling schedule/strategy for an airport) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0068] – “This disclosure contemplates that the nodes can be implemented using a computing device (e.g., a processing unit and memory as described herein).”
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20 include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20 include the additional element which recites in part “Geofencing analysis module…Neural network…Scheduler…Solver…Deep neural network…” These are consistent additional elements that are addressed above in claims 1, 8, and 15, and are not significantly more because these are again merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (analyze and evaluate the refueling schedule/strategy for an airpor) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 3, 10, 17, 21, 22 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to guidance contained within MPEP 2106 for 35 USC § 101 rejections, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
The Applicant argues that the claims overcome the 101 rejection because the claims include additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner does not find this persuasive because the items identified by applicant (hangar, flight line, etc,) are not actually claimed as additional elements. Rather, these are simply modifiers of the abstract idea, e.g. the data that is used to perform the matching analysis and do not effectively limit the claims to the practical application of an airport. Including these additional elements within the preamble of the claim (e.g. a system comprising a hangar, flight line, etc.) would appear to limit the claims to that practical application and potentially overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights