DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 12, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on January 12, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues with respect to the “mental process” and “mathematical concepts” abstract-idea groupings. Note that Examiner has characterized the abstract idea here as a “certain method(s) of organizing human activity,” as opposed to those other abstract-idea groupings.
Applicant next argues that the claimed invention provides improvements to other technologies (e.g., airport operations, determining gate hold times, calibrating parameters of graph network models, executing graph network models, etc.). In response, note that all four of the examples in parentheses here are part of the “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” in the rejections, and not part of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. For purposes of the technological/computing improvement consideration under 101 analysis, such improvement cannot be provided by the judicial exception alone.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites specific steps and data flows that improve the functionality of the systems. In response, Examiner does not note any improved functionality here that can be classified as a technological or computing improvement in the sense of that 101 analysis eligibility consideration.
Applicant argues based on the claims including a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Examiner disagrees. Looking to representative claim 1, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea that is explicitly recited in claim 1 is the one or more processors, which are generic computing components that do not meaningfully contribute to any 101 eligibility consideration, as required under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B of the 101 analysis.
Regarding USPTO 101 Example 21, the eligible example claim there had a rationale based off of the DDR decision. The DDR decision does not apply to Applicant’s claims because Applicant’s claims do not represent a technological solution to a problem arising from technology. There is no technological solution because there is no meaningfuly improvement in the additional elements beyond the abstract idea (the generic computing components).
Applicant argues based on allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer, which appears to be an argument based on the McRO decision. The McRO decision is distinguishable here because it was determined to involve a technological/computing improvement to the field of computer animation. There is no improvement to a technical field in Applicant’s claims, as they are merely abstract idea performed on generic computing components, without more.
Applicant brings up a number of argued benefits, such as increased airport throughput, but all of the argued benefits do not flow from technological or computing improvements. For example, the argued increased throughput would be from the steps of the abstract idea, which cannot alone provide a technological or computing improvement for 101 purposes.
Applicant next argued by comparing Applicant’s claims to claims directed to a trained neural network for transcribing speech. Applicant’s claims are distinguishable from claims focused on transcribing speech, as Applicant’s claims recite certain method(s) of organizing human activity and are not focused on a technological field such as computer recognition of speech input.
Regarding Applicant’s Berkheimer argument, no Berkheimer evidence is needed currently because Examiner is not interpreting any of the additional elements as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner is instead interpreting the computing components as generic computing components under “amount to mere instructions to apply an exception.”
Applicant returns to a McRO argument, but Examiner already addressed above why Applicant’s claims are distinguishable from the McRO decision.
Therefore, Examiner does not find Applicant’s 101 arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 20, Claim(s) 1 and 20 recite(s):
- creating a graph network model representing an airport;
- modeling movement of freight through the airport, using the graph network model;
- identifying the freight as misconnected freight;
- periodically determining a set of gate hold times for a second airplane, wherein the second airplane is associated with the misconnected freight;
- periodically modifying, responsive to the set of gate hold times, a gate hold time for the second airplane to allow the misconnected freight to be loaded onto the second airplane;
- assessing connection information associated with the misconnected freight from a first airplane;
- calibrating parameters of the graph network model utilizing historical airplane flight information for the airport and based on different operating characteristics of the airport;
- repeatedly executing the graph network model to obtain a suggested gate pushback time for the second airplane based on the assessing of the connection information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): helps manage air transportation, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps manage airport activities, which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- one or more processors; a system comprising: one or more processors; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-19, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a database (claim 15);
- an engine (claim 15);
- an interface (claim 15);
- storing the data in the database (claim 17);
- tuning the database to optimize the database performance, wherein the tuning includes placing frequently used files on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks (claim 17);
- designating a key field in data tables of the database to speed searching for the data (claim 17);
- obtaining the data from the frequently used files (claim 17);
- a time-based scanner that scans and records a reader scan with a time stamp (claim 18).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 2 merely adds detail to the graph network model of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. White, US 20120245836 A1 (system and method for airport surface management);
b. Bertsimas, US 20130013182 A1 (airport operations optimization);
c. Ganesan, US 20100185426 A1 (predicting aircraft taxi-out times);
d. Coulmeau, US 20090018713 A1 (system for aiding the taxiing of an aircraft);
e. Glass, US 6278965 B1 (real-time surface traffic adviser);
f. Dentcheva, WO 2007/048237 A1 (system and method for use in air traffic management);
g. Balakrishna, Poornima, Scalable Approximate Dynamic Programming Models with Applications in Air Transportation, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 2009.
h. Barnett, Arnold, Shumsky, Robert, Hansen, Mark, Odoni, Amedeo, and Gosling, Geoffrey, “Safe at Home? An Experiment in Domestic Airline Security,” Operations Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, March/April 2001, pp. 181-195.
i. Kleinman, Nathan Layne, Stochastic Approximation Algorithms: Theory and Application, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 1997.
j. Rosenberger, Jay Michael, Topics in Airline Operations, Georgia Institute of Technology, November 2001.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628