DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 1/28/2026, Applicant, on 4/27/2026, amended Claims 1-3, 13-14, 18, and 20. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts the predicted delay is used to control execution of physical aircraft turnaround activities at an airport, by stating the amending limitations of the claims, and stating that this is an improvement to another technology or technological field, citing determining scheduling status of a flight. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination of additional elements, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at scheduling of aircraft, and any improvement would be part of the abstraction here. The rejection below identifies two abstract ideas, that of a Mental Process and a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, as the Claims are directed at scheduling aircraft flights. These claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as hardware processors, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant asserts the claims recite a transformation which improves aircraft turnaround prediction accuracy, and thus the claim is integrated into a practical application. Applicant further states that this transformation is then used to control execution of the physical aircraft turnaround activities at an airport, and that like Desjardins there is an improvement in training of machine learning itself, and thus an improvement in 2B. Examiner disagrees as the “controlling” limitation is merely a drafting technique stating that the schedule is used to control aircraft and services related to turning around an aircraft, and this is not controlling of an aircraft or any other device but rather a transmission of information on a schedule essentially. A mathematical transformation is not a transformation which would practically integrate a Claim. Further there is no improvement to any additional element, alone or in combination, and these are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as hardware processors, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to “constructing via the one or more hardware processors, a statistical control chart for each hop by computing multiple control limits including upper and lower control limits derived from a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters, and dynamically calculated values of a moving central line by analyzing…” This “dynamically calculated values” is not supported in the specification as there is no mention as to what makes a value “dynamically calculated”. For instance, the Specification states:
“[012] In another aspect, a method for predicting multi-hop turnaround time operations in aircraft is provided. The method includes predicting multi-hop turnaround time operations in aircraft is provided. The system includes receiving an input data comprising one or more flight events scheduled between a source and a destination, wherein each flight event includes one or more hops and determining a scheduled turnaround time (TAT) value from outliers of each flight event. Further, a statistical control chart is constructed construct by analyzing the outliers of each flight event based on at least one of (i) if the standard deviation is lower than absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and a moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of turnaround parameters actual TAT value by using a plurality of turnaround parameters, and (ii) if the standard deviation exceeds absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and the moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters.”
Which shows that there are calculated values in relation to the baseline for instance, but not what would make these dynamically calculated. The Specification makes no mention of a dynamic value or what that would be. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitations for receiving an input data comprising one or more flight events scheduled between a source and a destination, wherein each flight event includes one or more hops, wherein the input data corresponds to operational flight data (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a scheduled turnaround time (TAT) value from outliers of each flight event (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), constructing a statistical control chart for each hop by computing multiple control limits including upper and lower control limits derived from a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters, and dynamically calculated values of a moving central line by analyzing the outliers of each flight event wherein the statistical control chart is constructed for at least one of (i) if a standard deviation is lower than absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and a moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of turnaround parameters, and (ii) if the standard deviation exceeds absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and the moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a station level TAT outlier data corresponding to each hop of each flight event based on the statistical control chart (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), estimating a continuous improvement plan based on (i) the statistical control chart, (ii) a plurality of influencing controllable factors, (iii) a plurality of influencing uncontrollable factors, and (iv) a power transformation of the actual TAT value (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), constructing a performance chart of each flight event by, determining one or more on-time performance parameters (OTP) of each flight event from the statistical control chart and computing a coefficient of variation (CoV) of the OTP based on a ratio of average OTP and the standard deviation of the OTP, determining a maximum OTP of each flight event based on (i) the coefficient of variation of the OTP, (ii) an improved OTP, and (iii) the one or more OTP, wherein the improved OTP is a sum of the OTP and the plurality of influencing controllable factors, and computing a one or more uncontrollable activities by estimating the improved OTP and limits of the plurality of influencing uncontrollable factors based on the maximum OTP and the improved OTP (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), computing a coefficient of association of each flight event between a previous hop of the OTP and the scheduled turnaround time (TAT) value based on a plurality of attributes (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), predicting at every hop turnaround time operations delay of each flight leg movement based on an air traffic delay model trained with a plurality of air traffic TAT delays (Analyzing Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and predicting delays impacting air traffic network at current flight leg based on the turnaround time operations delay and determining scheduling status of each flight event including executing or canceling a subsequent flight leg based on a threshold delay for next flight leg execution by estimating (i) an estimated time of departure (ETD) of current flight leg using a current flight leg data, (ii) an estimated time of departure time (ETD) of current flight leg using a previous leg data and the current flight leg data, and (iii) an estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the current leg data (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and controlling aircraft departure and arrival timing within the air traffic network by utilizing the predicted delays, wherein the predicted turnaround time operations delay is utilized to control execution of the physical aircraft turnaround activities at an airport station (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. Managing flights; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, hardware processors, system, memory, interfaces, and a storage medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Activity. For example, but for the “via one or more hardware processors” language, determining a scheduled turnaround time TAT value from outliers of each flight event encompasses a scheduler or air traffic controlling receiving flight information for planning purposes and then using it to come up with a turnaround time and then report that information, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, as described above, these processes recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, a “Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The processor, hardware processors, system, memory, communication interfaces, and storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amounts 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 is not patent eligible. Applicant’s specification states:
“[039] In an embodiment, the system 100 can be implemented in a variety of computing systems, such as laptop computers, notebooks, hand-held devices, workstations, mainframe computers, servers, a network cloud, and the like. “
Which is an example of a generic processing unit/computer system, as per the specification above, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, such as a laptop, desktop, tablet, etc., and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not similar to Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. For the collecting and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered an additional element, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processor, etc. nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the no new additional elements to be considered under prong 2 as part of the Alice analysis of the MPEP for a practical or under 2B, and thus 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. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Basanets (U.S. Publication No. 2023/035,9963), Schwindt (U.S. Publication No. 2022/034,3771), Johnson (U.S. Publication No. 2017/032,3274), and Forsberg (NPL - An analysis of schedule buffer time for increased robustness and cost efficiency in Scandinavian Airline's traffic program). Basanets, a method and system for validation of cost-optimal minimum turn times, teaches scheduling based on turn times, generating flight schedules, calculating data points using received flight data to determine quicker turnaround times, and comparing the results to the expected results from the client, e.g., as recorded in the external client database, where the minimum turn time as obtained may at times vary, sometimes significantly, from values provided by clients, such as a manufacturer of the aircraft, and translate to substantial cost savings on the actual day of operation, and likewise can reduce the risk of disruption to flight operations, but not on-time performance metrics nor does it estimate time of departure, or using uncontrollable activities in the computing process. Schwindt, a method and system for updating a flight plan, teaches use of parameters in calculating flight plans such as a destination, a trajectory, (such as a 3-dimensional or 4-dimensional trajectory), a type of flight (e.g., whether instrument flight rules (IFR) or visual flight rules (VFR)), an altitude, a flight level, an airspeed, a climb rate, a descent rate, a waypoint, a checkpoint, an alternate airport or destination, a turn radius, a fuel level, an airline, an airline flight number, an aircraft identification number, an aircraft type, a departure date, a departure or origin airport, a departure gate or jetway, a destination airport, an arrival gate or jetway, a departure time, an estimated time to complete the flight, an arrival time, the pilot's name, and a number of passengers onboard, and an allotted, scheduled turnaround times for a particular destination airport, and notifications for aviation service actions using relative rankings of the chosen parameters, but it does not teach a maximum on-time performance parameters or use of a standard deviation or a coefficient of variation. Johnson, a system and method for controlling aircraft operations and aircraft engine components assignment, teaches calculation of average flight-hours, locations, and many other averages related to performance, turnaround times for repairs on aircraft, cost of achieving KPIs having to do with repair of planes, and departure date and times, but it does not explicitly state use of a coefficient of variation and standard deviation exceeding an absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and the moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters. Forsberg, NPL research for analysis of schedule buffer time for increased robustness and cost efficiency in Scandinavian Airline's traffic program, teaches standard deviation being used to reduce error, prediction of delays using a calculation matrix, and use of coefficients for calculating airline process, but not in the specific manner as claimed. None of the prior art specifically teaches this coefficient of variation and standard deviation exceeding an absolute difference between the baseline TAT value and the moving central line of the actual TAT value by using a plurality of baseline turnaround parameters, along with the other limitations of the claims, and although parts are taught be each of the prior art, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230359963 A1
Basanets; Oleksandr et al.
VALIDATION OF COST-OPTIMAL MINIMUM TURN TIMES
US 20220343771 A1
Schwindt; Stefan
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UPDATING A FLIGHT PLAN
US 20170323274 A1
Johnson; Christopher Donald et al.
CONTROLLING AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENTS ASSIGNMENT
US 20240312350 A1
Gopalakrishnan; Sadhana et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND STORAGE MEDIA FOR FORECASTING AIRCRAFT OPERATION DATA
US 20230334994 A1
DU; Wenbo et al.
Multi-Objective Collaborative Optimization Approach for Large- Scale Air Traffic Management
US 20230077115 A1
EKAMBARAM; GAYATHRI et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOMMENDING IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS
US 20200377232 A1
Gonzalez Parra; Garoe et al.
AIRCRAFT TURNAROUND MONITORING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
US 20200334586 A1
PETROULAS; Peter
AUTONOMOUS AND INTEGRATED SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DYNAMIC OPTIMISATION AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR DEFINED SPACES AND TIME PERIODS
US 20190108758 A1
BYRAVAN; Satish et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FLIGHT DELAY PREDICTION
US 20180349849 A1
JONES; Russell et al.
COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS FOR OBTAINING LOADS
US 20180096612 A1
Alphonso; Noel et al.
Device, System, and Method for Gate Optimization
US 20180016034 A1
Joyson; John Premnath et al.
AIRCRAFT TURNAROUND AND AIRPORT TERMINAL STATUS ANALYSIS
US 20170011638 A1
AGRAWAL; ASHUTOSH et al.
MONITORING SCHEDULED TURNAROUND ACTIVITIES AND ALERTING ON TIME DEVIATION OF SCHEDULED TURNAROUND ACTIVITIES
US 20160109251 A1
Thakur; Aayush
ROUTE OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
US 20160104383 A1
Chandran; Bala et al.
Distributed Air Traffic Flow Management
US 20160104111 A1
JONES; Russell et al.
OBTAINING LOADS FOR NEXT LEG OR BACKHAUL
US 20150166174 A1
Cox; Isaiah Watas et al.
Method for Reducing Aircraft Turnaround Time by Improving Ramp Safety
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/2/2026
Prosecution Insights