DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 18 of June 2026.
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Objection
The examiner notes that claims 1 and 20 discloses “wherein the upgrade analyzer comprises a specialized software module configured to configured to communicate with external reservation systems and revenue management systems” where “configure to (in bold) appears twice consecutively and is interpreted to be a typo.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the amended claims recite specific technological improvements to the functioning of airline revenue management computer systems. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate are not directed to an abstract idea. Similarly, the present claims recite specific improvements to how airline overbooking management systems function. Applicant further asserts that the integration of binomial probability distributions into the flight cost prediction model represents a specific, technical implementation that improves forecasting accuracy, not a mere abstract mathematical concept. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Step two of the Alice test is a two-prong test, where Prong I analyzes whether the claims recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon (i.e. a judicial exception). This application describes a computer system for predicting which airline passengers will show up for a flight and using that prediction to decide how many extra seats to sell. It combines historical passenger data, itinerary details, and flight-specific cost data to estimate overbooking risk. The system looks at each passenger’s trip structure, including the next active leg of the itinerary, to better predict whether the passenger will fly. It also estimates the cost of empty seats and the cost of denying boarding to too many passengers. Using these forecasts, it calculates an authorized seat allocation for each flight. The system can update those calculations repeatedly during the day as conditions change. It can also adjust the number and price of additional seats offered for sale. The claims remain an abstract idea of mathematical calculations since the claims disclose multiple models applying logistic regression aimed at providing an updated authorization parameter for the flight based on the authorized seat allocation. The claims also fall under certain method of organizing human activity because they are aimed at selling seats which is a sales activity. In Enfish, the court distinguished between claims that focus on a specific improvement in computer capabilities, on the one hand, and an abstract idea that merely implements computers as tools, on the other. Contrary to applicant’s argument, this case is unlike Enfish. In contrast to Enfish, claims 1 and 20 do no more than use instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. ¶63 of the instant application’s specification discloses that “software elements may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable data processing means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks”. There is no clear description of how the special purpose software performs the invention in the specification and as previously shown in ¶63 clearly states that a generic computer can perform the invention. Further, it is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Id. All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo. If a claim passes the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is not directed to an exception at Step 2A, or amounts to significantly more than any recited exception in Step 2B), then the claim is eligible even if it fails the machine-or-transformation test ("M-or-T test"). Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (explaining that a claim may be 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]here is nothing that requires a method ‘be tied to a machine or transform an article’ to be patentable"). And if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine -or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'"). Lastly, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant asserts that this chain of transformations is not merely data manipulation. Instead, the transformations result in a tangible change to the physical world. In particular, the tangible change includes aircraft seats that were previously unavailable becoming available for purchase, or seats that were available become restricted. Therefore, Applicant asserts that the claims satisfy the transformation test because the claims effect a meaningful transformation of data into real-world seat inventory states. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant asserts that the claims recite specific database optimization techniques, namely using key fields to speed searches, sorting records to simplify lookup, tuning databases to optimize performance, and placing frequently used files on separate file systems to reduce bottlenecks. These are not generic computer functions because most computers do not include all of these features, in combination with real-time iterative forecasting. Therefore, the ordered combination of all these elements together cannot be considered well-understood, routine, or conventional. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. Further, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner ( e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis "); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 85 0 F.3d 13 32, 134 0 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data " is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 13 72 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea."). Lastly, many of the argued 'unconventional' limitations are part of the abstract idea, and were properly treated under Step 2A Prong I. The remaining limitations merely provide for generic computer implementation of these abstract concepts." Generic computer implementation does not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea."
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a network interface communicating with a memory; the memory communicating with a processor; the processor, when executing a computer program, executes operations comprising: determining, by the processor using an upgrade analyzer, an aircraft next active leg (NAL) of the aircraft passenger based on passenger name record (PNR) characteristics of an aircraft passenger, wherein the upgrade analyzer comprises a specialized software module configured to interface with a central data repository storing PNR data, wherein the upgrade analyzer comprises a specialized software module configured to communicate with external reservation systems and revenue management systems; analyzing, by the processor using a no show forecaster, historical show rate data by directional markets and the PNR characteristics; applying, by the processor using the no show forecaster in real-time iteratively throughout a period of time, logistic regression to historical PNR data to generate forecast coefficients based on the historical show rate data for a forecast market for the passenger; aggregating, by the processor using the no show forecaster, a subset of the forecast coefficients associated with historical PNR data with similar PNR characteristics; forecasting, by the processor using the no show forecaster in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, an NSF for a particular passenger based on the aggregating and based on the PNR characteristics; storing, by the processor using the optimizer and in one or more connected databases, the PNR characteristics and the aircraft NAL of the aircraft passenger; using, by the processor using the optimizer, a key field in pre-selected data sectors to speed searches; sorting, by the processor using the optimizer, records in the data sectors according to a known order to simplify lookup; tuning, by the processor using the optimizer, the one or more connected databases to optimize database performance, wherein the tuning comprises placing frequently used files on separate file systems to reduce in and out bottlenecks; obtaining, by the processor in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, the PNR characteristics and the aircraft NAL of the aircraft passenger from the one or more connected databases; determining, by the processor using the no show forecaster and based on the PNR characteristics in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, an aircraft booked passenger NSF for each aircraft booked passenger for the aircraft flight, wherein the aircraft booked passenger NSF for each respective aircraft passenger is based upon the aircraft NAL of the respective aircraft passenger; assigning, by the processor using the no show forecaster, a forecast market based on the aircraft NAL; determining, by the processor using the no show forecaster and based upon the forecast market and PNR characteristics, NSF forecast coefficients for the passenger; determining, by the processor, that an itinerary for the aircraft passenger includes flying a first leg and a second leg; determining, by the processor, that the aircraft passenger did not yet fly the first leg; determining, by the processor, that the NAL for the aircraft passenger is the first leg; using, by the processor, the NSF forecast coefficients for the first leg to determine the NSF for the second leg for the aircraft passenger; determining, by the processor and within an advanced purchase timeframe and in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, an aircraft unbooked passenger NSF based on the historical show rate data by directional market and the NSF for the second leg for the aircraft passenger to predict an unbooked show rate to associate with unbooked seats of the aircraft flight; aggregating, by the processor, the aircraft booked passenger NSF and the aircraft unbooked passenger NSF to create an aircraft flight NSF, wherein the aggregating comprises applying bounded show rate parameters determined from historical show rates at a market level using statistical percentile calculations; determining, by the processor and using an upgrade analyzer with a flight cost prediction model in a forecaster module in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, an aircraft authorized seat allocation (AU) for the aircraft flight based upon the aircraft NSF to maximize aircraft revenue for the aircraft flight and minimize aircraft flight costs of overbooking the aircraft flight, wherein the flight cost prediction model calculates costs across a show rate distribution using a binomial probability distribution dependent on a historical no-show rate; updating, by the processor using the upgrade analyzer in real-time iteratively throughout the period of time, an authorization parameter to create an updated authorization parameter for the aircraft flight based upon the AU, wherein the updating occurs in response to at least one of a flight cancellation, an aircraft downgrade, a weather condition, or an operational factor affecting flights scheduled for departure within a rolling time period; and determining, by the processor using the upgrade analyzer and based on the updated authorization parameter, a number of additional seats to be sold for the flight and a respective price for each additional seat, wherein the determining comprises transmitting the updated authorization parameter to an external reservation system that dynamically adjusts seat inventory available for sale based on the updated authorization parameter”. Claim 20 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 20 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” (e.g. logistic regression, forecast coefficients, data aggregation, determining a flight cost prediction) as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Dependent claim 2-19 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 20 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 20 recite additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 15-16 recite additional elements “a customer mobile device”, “historical NSF database”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 15-16, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶63 "Software elements may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable data processing means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks. These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instruction means which implement the function specified herein or in flowchart block or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks”.
As a result, claims 1, 15-16, and 20 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-14 and 17-19 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights