DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims filed on December 8, 2023.
Claims 1 and 2 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed December 8, 2023 been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The present application claims benefit to provisional application US 63/422,099 filed on November 3, 2022.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because the claim is written in a format without indentation or proper punctuations that distinguish the steps of the claim.
The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1,75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the claim is written in a format without indentation or proper punctuations that distinguish the steps of the claim. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1,75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. First word of new step should not be capitalized, thus, “Performing” should read “performing”.
“guide lines” should read “guidelines”
“staff/resources” should read “staff or resources”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are written in narrative language and fails to be written in format that actively claiming the functional steps of the method. That is, claims 1 and 2 are written in a format without indentations or proper punctuations that distinguish the steps of the claim. The claims are objected to because it is a single lengthy paragraph containing multiple distinct concepts, phrases, and clauses that are difficult to parse. The claims contain numerous “where” and “wherein” clauses that introduce ambiguity as to whether they are functional limitations or merely descriptive context. For example, claims are replete with descriptive clauses, “where there are fees associated with the accreditation process such as application fees and on-site costs, travel and lodging,” “where the application fee is submitted with a signed contract following the airport's successfully completing all current IAAA accreditation standards,” “where a signed contract with IAAA by the airports seeking initial accreditation will have one-year to complete an onsite assessment of the airport;” etc., which appear to be informational rather than a positively (i.e., written in present tense) functional limitations to be performed on the method steps. The Examiner suggests the claims to be rewritten into a more structural format that clearly delineate the actual steps of the method.
Claims 1 and 2 recite “IAAA,” “IAAA accreditation standards,” “IAAA Director of Professional Services,” “IAAA Executive Board” and “Accreditation Commission” which are found to be indefinite.
First, is “IAAA” a fictional entity or a real entity? If “IAAA” is a fictional entity created for the patent, then its standards and personnel do not exist, making it impossible to determine what the claim requires and the scope is entirely unknowable. If “IAAA” is a real entity, then the use of the term “IAAA” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term, in the claims and the specification. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Further, by naming “IAAA” the disclosure improperly suggests the invention is tied exclusively to this one entity.
Second, the scope of the patent claim must be fixed as of its effective filling date. By typing the claim to “current IAAA standards,” described in the Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0033]: “The accreditation standards are updated annually with new editions published each year.” The scope of the claim would change every year as the IAAA updates its standards. A competitor would have no way of knowing with reasonable certainty whether they are infringing the method, because the very definition of the method’s requirement is constantly changing by a third-party entity (IAAA), which “current IAAA standards” is found to be indefinite.
Lastly, the “current IAAA standards” is defined and updated by “IAAA accreditation standards,” “IAAA Director of Professional Services,” “IAAA Executive Board” and “Accreditation Commission”. A person of ordinary skilled in the art has no way to objectively identify these individuals or bodies.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1 and 2 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is:
A method for an airport accreditation process for an airport to meet specific airport standards that earns the airport the title of “World Class”, comprising the steps of:
Performing Phase 1 of interest and contract, wherein airport staff works with the Director of Professional Services to develop guide lines for the airport and staff/resources, where there are fees associated with the accreditation process such as application fees and on-site costs, travel and lodging, where the application fee is submitted with a signed contract following the airport's successfully completing all current IAAA accreditation standards, where a signed contract with IAAA by the airports seeking initial accreditation will have one-year to complete an onsite assessment of the airport;
Performing Phase 2 of file maintenance, where the airport must keep current files to support each standard met, including any training provided to employee have a signature and date of the employee trained as a proof of training;
Performing Phase 3 of self-assessment, where the airport assesses their ability to meet all IAAA accreditation standards addressing major airport areas as established by the program's Professional Services Committee, where there is major areas emphasis on goals and objectives, role and authority, management staffing, organization, records management, information technology, unusual occurrences, health and safety, fiscal management, recruitment and selection, training, performance evaluation, and code of conduct, whereby during the file maintenance and self-assessment phases, the airport gathers proof of the ability to meet the standards and proof of the airport's institutionalization of the standards;
Performing Phase 4 of on-site assessment and evaluation, where during the on-site assessment and evaluation phase, the on-site assessment team is a group of volunteer Assessors from various airports, the on-site assessment team of Assessors evaluates the airport's ability to meet the IAAA accreditation standards, review files for policies and procedures as well as documents showing the airport is operating under the direction of those policies and procedures, where Assessors also interview airport members to gather additional information and to see how well the policies and procedures are understood and communicated, where Assessors are encouraged to recommend where improvements can be made, where results of the on-site and suggestion for improvement are compiled in the final on-site report, where non-compliance issues must be reconciled to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Services before the airport presentation to the Accreditation Commission, where all non-compliance issues must be resolved at least 30 days prior to the Commission meeting;
Performing Phase 5 of a review by the Accreditation Board of Commissioners, where the IAAA Director of Professional Services, the Chief Administrator of the airport seeking accreditation, and the departmental Accreditation Manager appears before the Accreditation Commission for determination if the airport has met all IAAA standards and where findings of the Accreditation Commission of evaluating an airport's suitability for accreditation is final;
Performing Phase 6 of an Executive Director review, where the IAAA Executive Board reviews the findings of the Accreditation Commission and confirms a final decision;
Performing Phase 7 of an award, where the airport is presented with a plaque and certificate for successfully achieving the professional standards as outlined in the International Association of Airport Accreditation.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of airport accreditation.
The above-mentioned limitations recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and legal interaction in the form of business practice of certifying compliance with a set of standards. Claim 1 recites a multi-phase method comprising administrative and organizational steps: establishing a contract (phase 1), maintaining files (phase 2), performing a self-assessment (phase 3), conducting an on-site evaluation by a third party (phase 4), and having the results reviewed by governing bodies for a final decision and award (phases 5-7). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, that are:
(a) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - See MPEP 2106.05(a)
(b) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - See MPEP 2106.05(b)
(c) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of thing - See MPEP 2106.05(c)
(d) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - See MPEP 2106.05(e)
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea of certification method). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claim 2, the claim further recites additional abstract step and information of periodic re-accreditation. The additional abstract step and information do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element has been added that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claim considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO 9001 Quality Management System Certification (provided by 9001simplified.com documents, hereinafter, “ISO 9001”), in view of Short Guide to Airport Carbon Accreditation (hereinafter, “ACA”).
Claim 1, ISO 9001 discloses a method for an airport accreditation process for an airport to meet specific airport standards that earns the airport the title of “World Class” (ISO 9001 page 11, teaches a “certification process” for an organization to meet the requirements of the ISO 9001. In page 1, teaches the ISO 9001 certification for airports), comprising the steps of:
Performing Phase 1 of interest and contract (in the initial preparation and engagement steps for ISO 90001 certification), wherein airport staff works with the Director of Professional Services to develop guide lines for the airport and staff/resources (pages 18 and 20, in the “preparation” step where an organization must define goals, define the scope, and plan the project, often with a consultant or registrar), where there are fees associated with the accreditation process such as application fees and on-site costs, travel and lodging (page 13, teaches there are costs for implementation and for the certification audit by a third-party registrar), where the application fee is submitted with a signed contract following the airport's successfully completing all current IAAA accreditation standards , where a signed contract with IAAA by the airports seeking initial accreditation will have one-year to complete an onsite assessment of the airport (this is conventional business step for engaging a service);
Performing Phase 2 of file maintenance, where the airport must keep current files to support each standard met, including any training provided to employee have a signature and date of the employee trained as a proof of training (pages 24, “step 2: Documentation”. Page 27, “records provide evidence that your organization meets the requirements” and must be maintained);
Performing Phase 3 of self-assessment, where the airport assesses their ability to meet all IAAA accreditation standards addressing major airport areas as established by the program's Professional Services Committee, where there is major areas emphasis on goals and objectives, role and authority, management staffing, organization, records management, information technology, unusual occurrences, health and safety, fiscal management, recruitment and selection, training, performance evaluation, and code of conduct, whereby during the file maintenance and self-assessment phases, the airport gathers proof of the ability to meet the standards and proof of the airport's institutionalization of the standards (page 36, ISO 9001 requires a mandatory “Step: Internal Audit,” which it defines as a “self-inspection.”);
Performing Phase 4 of on-site assessment and evaluation, where during the on-site assessment and evaluation phase, the on-site assessment team is a group of volunteer Assessors from various airports, the on-site assessment team of Assessors evaluates the airport's ability to meet the IAAA accreditation standards (page 41, ISO 9001 teaches that the certification process culminates in a certification audit conducted by an independent, third-party auditor), review files for policies and procedures as well as documents showing the airport is operating under the direction of those policies and procedures, where Assessors also interview airport members to gather additional information and to see how well the policies and procedures are understood and communicated (page 36, standard auditing practice taught by ISO 9001, where an audit involves examining records and interviewing staff), where Assessors are encouraged to recommend where improvements can be made, where results of the on-site and suggestion for improvement are compiled in the final on-site report, where non-compliance issues must be reconciled to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Services before the airport presentation to the Accreditation Commission, where all non-compliance issues must be resolved at least 30 days prior to the Commission meeting (page 43, teaches that if nonconformities are found, they must be corrected before a certificate can be issued);
Performing Phase 7 of an award, where the airport is presented with a plaque and certificate for successfully achieving the professional standards as outlined in the International Association of Airport Accreditation (page 42 teaches the issuance of an ISO 9001 certificate).
However, ISO 9001 does not expressly teach Performing Phase 5 of a review by the Accreditation Board of Commissioners, where the IAAA Director of Professional Services, the Chief Administrator of the airport seeking accreditation, and the departmental Accreditation Manager appears before the Accreditation Commission for determination if the airport has met all IAAA standards and where findings of the Accreditation Commission of evaluating an airport's suitability for accreditation is final; Performing Phase 6 of an Executive Director review, where the IAAA Executive Board reviews the findings of the Accreditation Commission and confirms a final decision.
ACA is in the similar field of accreditation program (page 2), which specifically teaches:
where there are fees associated with the accreditation process such as application fees and on-site costs, travel and lodging, where the application fee is submitted with a signed contract following the airport's successfully completing all current IAAA accreditation standards, where a signed contract with IAAA by the airports seeking initial accreditation will have one-year to complete an onsite assessment of the airport (page 4, the airport pays participation fee);
Performing Phase 3 of self-assessment, where the airport assesses their ability to meet all IAAA accreditation standards addressing major airport areas as established by the program's Professional Services Committee, where there is major areas emphasis on goals and objectives, role and authority, management staffing, organization, records management, information technology, unusual occurrences, health and safety, fiscal management, recruitment and selection, training, performance evaluation, and code of conduct, whereby during the file maintenance and self-assessment phases, the airport gathers proof of the ability to meet the standards and proof of the airport's institutionalization of the standards (ACA page 8 teaches that an airport’s Carbon Management Plan must include “Self-assessment/auditing.”);
Performing Phase 4 of on-site assessment and evaluation, where during the on-site assessment and evaluation phase, the on-site assessment team is a group of volunteer Assessors from various airports, the on-site assessment team of Assessors evaluates the airport's ability to meet the IAAA accreditation standards (ACA page 2 teaches an essential requirement for airports, which must undergo independent third-party verification by an approved verifier)
Performing Phase 5 of a review by the Accreditation Board of Commissioners, where the IAAA Director of Professional Services, the Chief Administrator of the airport seeking accreditation, and the departmental Accreditation Manager appears before the Accreditation Commission for determination if the airport has met all IAAA standards and where findings of the Accreditation Commission of evaluating an airport's suitability for accreditation is final; Performing Phase 6 of an Executive Director review, where the IAAA Executive Board reviews the findings of the Accreditation Commission and confirms a final decision (ACA page 4 teaches a multi-level governance structure is used for airport accreditation. In ACA, an administrator first reviews and approves application and then a higher body, ACI Europe formally awards certificate to airport).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the accreditation process/method of ISO 9001 to adapt the generic ISO 9001 process to the airport industry for the motivation by the ACA model to implement a similar multi-level review structure (e.g., “Commission” and an “Executive Board”) as a predictable design choice for ensuring robust oversight.
Claim 2, the combination of ISO 9001 and ACA makes obvious of the method of claim 1, wherein there is a re-accreditation Phase 8 every 3 years, where the airport repeats the entire process, where the airport subject to re-accreditation is notified of the up-and-coming re-accreditation by the Director of Professional Services in the fall prior to the re-accreditation year; wherein the airport will have an agreed upon timeline of the re-accrediting year to successfully complete a re-accreditation on-site; wherein airports not re-accrediting by a pre-determined date are suspended the following year and must re-apply as a new accrediting airport the second year; wherein the airport must supply contemporary proof for each standard that occurred with the past calendar years and must also provide annual proofs from, at least the past year; and wherein re-accrediting airports are subject to the IAAA accreditation standards in effect at the time of successful completion of a mock assessment (ISO page 44, “maintain registration,” the organization must undergo periodic surveillance audits and that the certificate has a “3-year validity which process must be repeated. ACA page 3, renewal cycle, which for certain levels of accreditation is required “Every 3 years”). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of ISO 9001 with/and the teachings of ACA are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Johnson (US 20050091067 A1) is directed to a methodology for standards registrars to meet requirements of governmental accrediting agencies includes a unique set of procedures and work instructions for certifying or registering an organization as conforming to one or more national or international standards. The procedures and work instructions assure adherence to the international guidance document government registrars, while providing easily used and maintained instructions for employees. The procedures and work instructions are amenable to translation into various foreign languages. In one embodiment, the methodology includes procedures and work instructions governing the quotation process and scheduling of audits, including selection of auditors, as well as audit package review and issuance of appropriate certificates of compliance are. The procedures and work instructions for all audits and certifications are preferably controlled (150) and directly auditable via a single location or office, such as the registrar's headquarters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626