DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 (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 by analyzing the outliers of each flight event based on 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 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), 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 20230077115 A1
EKAMBARAM; GAYATHRI et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOMMENDING IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS
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 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 20020049622 A1
Lettich, Anthony R. et al.
Vertical systems and methods for providing shipping and logistics services, operations and products to an industry
US 8311863 B1
Kemp; Stacy M.
Utility high performance capability assessment
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 1/23/2026