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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on February 18, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, none of the claims are currently being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Applicant argues against the 101 rejections based on the significant amendments which added a number of limitations to the independent claim. However, note that the argued amendments largely consist of further flight scheduling limitations, which merely add on to the abstract idea, since they fall under certain method(s) of organizing human activity. In addition, the claims still do not have any additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are other than generic/general-purpose computing system components. Merely performing an abstract idea on generic/general-purpose computing system components, without more, does not render eligibility to a claim reciting such abstract idea, under 101 guidance.
Applicant next argues based on the computing system being a specific machine. However, again, merely performing an abstract idea on generic computing components, without more, does not render eligibility to a claim reciting such abstract idea, under 101 guidance. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant next argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application based on real-world physical results in terms of aircraft and moving passengers (for example). In response, note that the claims currently just plan future transportation; they do not even actually control the movement of a transportation vehicle. Therefore, we do not even need to arrive at the question yet of whether such actual physical operation would result in eligibility, and Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the claims address a real-world transportation efficiency problem. In response, the problem of inefficient passenger loads on aircraft is not a technological problem; rather, it is a business or organizational process problem. Therefore, such an alleged improvement would not invoke the technological or computing improvement consideration under 101 for rendering eligibility, and Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive. In addition, the claims are not analogous to Enfish, as Applicant also argues, because the alleged improvement in Applicant’s claims is not to a computing or technological field.
Applicant next argues that the proactive, unsolicited nature of the flight suggestion -- transmitted without receiving a prior request from a user who designates the specific air route -- renders eligibility to the claim. However, note that this feature is merely a further part of the abstract idea, and eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2, or Step 2B, requires meaningful contribution to the eligibility consideration from additional elements beyond the abstract idea. That is not the case here, because the additional elements are all generic computing components. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2B for amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, but Applicant is largely arguing based on flight planning limitations that are part of the abstract idea, as opposed to being additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Again, eligibility from Step 2B requires meaningful contribution to the eligibility consideration from additional elements beyond the abstract idea. That is not the case here, because the additional elements are all generic computing components. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Interpretation
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, none of the claims are currently being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- aircraft management;
- acquire user schedule information, the user schedule information indicating a traveling schedule of each user;
- acquire aircraft flight plan information indicating a flight plan of an aircraft;
- for each user, based on: ground traveling from a traveling starting point in the traveling schedule of the user up to a departure point of a specific air route, flight traveling via the specific air route on a specific date and time, ground traveling from an arrival point of the specific air route up to a traveling ending point in the traveling schedule of the user, determine whether arrival at the traveling ending point according to the traveling schedule can be ensured;
- extract, as a suitable user, the suitable user being the user whose traveling via a common specific air route on a common specific date and time is determined to be compatible with the traveling schedule;
- output, when a first predetermined number of the suitable users or more are extracted, specific flight use suggestion information to each of the suitable users, the specific flight use suggestion information suggesting use of a specific flight corresponding to the traveling via the specific air route on the specific date and time, the specific flight use suggestion information being output without receiving a prior request from a user who designates the specific air route;
- receive specific flight use application information output in response to the specific flight use suggestion information;
- execute a specific flight arrangement process for conducting the specific flight when the number of the suitable users from which the applications for use of the specific flight are accepted is a second predetermined number of people or more;
- execute a process of reserving seats when the specific flight is a regular flight, and execute a process of securing an aircraft when the specific flight is a chartered flight;
- execute process of canceling the specific flight when the number of the suitable users from which the applications for use of the specific flight are accepted is smaller than the second predetermined number of people.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): encompasses managing commercial air transportation;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): organizes transportation of multiple people with respect to aircraft.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system which for a plurality of users, communicates with a communication terminal used by each user via a communication network, comprising a processor that is configured; information being transmitted from the communication terminal used by each user; accessing a database in which information is recorded; outputting by transmitting to a communication terminal; outputting via transmitting: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-6, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- transmitting from a communication terminal (Claim 2);
- a database in which information is recorded (Claim 5).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 3 merely provides further detail to the meaning of the second predetermined number of people.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-6 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim, US 10867179 B2 (mobile terminal and method for controlling the same).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights