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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-5 and 15-21 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15: “notifying an owner of the matched plane of the charter flight request via an owner application” should read “notifying an owner of the matched at least one available plane of the charter flight request via an owner application”
Claim 15: “providing a summary of the booked charter flight request comprising a payment receipt and a booking confirmation to the customer application” should read “providing a summary of the assigned charter flight request comprising a payment receipt and a booking confirmation to the customer application.”
Claim 16: “providing a summary of the booked charter flight details” should read “providing a summary of the assigned charter flight request’s details”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “payment processing module” in claim 2, “a bid facilitator” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1-5 and 15-21 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “requesting and booking charter flights; bidding on customer requests and managing plane details; coordinating bidding and scheduling charter flight operations associated with winning bids).
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for booking charter flights which is a method of commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (i.e. following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “a customer mobile application accessible to charter flight customers”, “an owner mobile application accessible to plane owners” and “a back-end application”. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. Moreover, in regards to claim 1, the claim is directed to a "system"; however, the body of the claim recites a “customer mobile application”, “an owner mobile application” and “a back-end application”. The “applications”, in view of broadest reasonable interpretation, are interpreted as programs/software only. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Dependent claims 2 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“a payment processing module” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“a bid facilitator, and one or more owner mobile applications” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receiving a charter flight request with user requirements; matching at least one available plane based on the charter flight request; notifying an owner of the matched plane of the charter flight request; starting an auction for the charter flight request; receiving at least one bid from at least one matched plane owner; determining a winning bid based on price and availability; assigning the requested charter flight to the winning bid; and providing a summary of the booked charter flight request comprising a payment receipt and a booking confirmation”.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of or booking charter flights which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (i.e. following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “a customer application” and “an owner application”. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 19 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 21 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 18 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eagle (US 2009/0198624).
As per claim 1, Eagle discloses a computer-implemented system for management of charter flight transportation, comprising:
a customer mobile application accessible to charter flight customers for requesting and booking charter flights (paragraph 11, “[0011] Within system 1, traveler information device 110 can be used by a traveler to interact with a reservation service at server 130 to, for example, request a passenger accommodation reservation, receive notice of a passenger accommodation and/or reservation, provide payment for a reservation, provide notice of delays, etc.”);
an owner mobile application accessible to plane owners for bidding on customer requests and managing plane details (paragraph 11, “Charter operator information device 120 can be used by a charter transport operator and/or a charter transport service operator to interact with a reservation service at server 130 to, for example, communicate an availability of a charter transport, submit bids to fulfill a passenger accommodation reservation request, receive notice of a passenger accommodation reservation, provide notice of charter run delays, receive notice of passenger delays, receive payment for a passenger accommodation reservation, etc.”); and
a back-end application for coordinating bidding and scheduling charter flight operations associated with winning bids (paragraph 11, “[0011] Within system 1, traveler information device 110 can be used by a traveler to interact with a reservation service at server 130 to, for example, request a passenger accommodation reservation, receive notice of a passenger accommodation and/or reservation, provide payment for a reservation, provide notice of delays, etc. Charter operator information device 120 can be used by a charter transport operator and/or a charter transport service operator to interact with a reservation service at server 130 to, for example, communicate an availability of a charter transport, submit bids to fulfill a passenger accommodation reservation request, receive notice of a passenger accommodation reservation, provide notice of charter run delays, receive notice of passenger delays, receive payment for a passenger accommodation reservation, etc.”).
As per claim 3, Eagle discloses wherein the customer mobile application receives charter flight requests comprising a source location, a destination location, a date range, and a number of passengers traveling (paragraph 12-13).
As per claim 4, Eagle discloses a bid facilitator to receive the charter flight requests from the customer mobile application, receive bids from one or more owner mobile applications, and select relevant bids (paragraph 12-13).
As per claim 5, Eagle discloses wherein relevant bids are selected based on a match between one of more of a source location destination location, number of passengers, date range, and price between the charter flight requests and owner bids (paragraph 35, 41, 43, 45-48).
As per claim 15, Eagle discloses a method for management and coordination of charter flight transportation, comprising:
receiving a charter flight request with user requirements from a customer application (paragraph 11-13, “The request can include one or more origin-destination-pairs (e.g., city-pairs, airport-pairs, port-pairs, etc.), as well as departure dates and times and/or arrival dates and times.”);
matching at least one available plane based on the charter flight request (paragraph 35, 41, 43, 53, “Then, as empty legs become known to a charter operator, that charter operator can communicate to the reservation server the identification of the charter transport and its availability (e.g., the dates and times it is available for use). Thus, once a reservation request is received, the server can check its database for the available inventory of flights and seats and see whether there is a match or not.”);
notifying an owner of the matched plane of the charter flight request via an owner application (paragraph 11, 36, “The traveler can accept any received bid and communicate this selection to the server, which can provide notification to the corresponding charter operator.”);
starting an auction for the charter flight request (paragraph 36, “a traveler can provide a passenger accommodation reservation request (e.g., a seat reservation request) to the reservation server, and the server can automatically seek bids to fulfill the seat request from a plurality of participating charter operators. In one embodiment, the server can select the lowest bid and provide it to the traveler. In another embodiment, the server can provide any and/or all received bids to the traveler. The traveler can accept any received bid and communicate this selection to the server, which can provide notification to the corresponding charter operator.”);
receiving at least one bid from at least one matched plane owner (paragraph 11, 36, “a traveler can provide a passenger accommodation reservation request (e.g., a seat reservation request) to the reservation server, and the server can automatically seek bids to fulfill the seat request from a plurality of participating charter operators. In one embodiment, the server can select the lowest bid and provide it to the traveler. In another embodiment, the server can provide any and/or all received bids to the traveler. The traveler can accept any received bid and communicate this selection to the server, which can provide notification to the corresponding charter operator.”);
determining a winning bid based on price and availability (paragraph 11, 36, “In one embodiment, the server can select the lowest bid and provide it to the traveler.”);
assigning the requested charter flight to the winning bid (paragraph 16, “During exemplary information flow 50, the reservation service can notify RoyalAir of the reservation and information regarding the passengers holding the seat reservations.”); and
providing a summary of the booked charter flight request comprising a payment receipt and a booking confirmation to the customer application (paragraph 16, 26, “During exemplary information flow 70, the reservation service can relay these issues to the traveler, and/or can provide a receipt for the earlier payment. During exemplary information flow 80, the reservation service can provide payment to RoyalAir.”, “Once they book the seat, travelers can be given all necessary information required by the FAA, such as tail number, certificate information, etc. as well instructions on where and when to meet their flight. They can also be given a number to call if they are running late. In one embodiment, once they arrive at the terminal, they will only have to present identification. All tickets can be electronic.”.).
As per claim 17, Eagle discloses wherein the step of receiving a charter flight request further comprises the step of: entering a source location, a destination location, a number of passengers traveling, a date range, and a price requirement into the customer application (paragraph 35, 41, 43, 45-48 and 53).
As per claim 18, Eagle discloses registering a customer through the customer application (paragraph 38); and registering an owner through the owner application (paragraph 14, 34).
As per claim 19, Eagle discloses entering payment details into the customer application, the payment details including at least one of a credit card number, a selection of Apple Pay, a selection of Google Pay, and a selection of a previously stored credit card (paragraph 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in view of Florimond (US 2014/0172472).
As per claim 2, Eagle discloses wherein the back-end application further comprises a payment processing module for handling booking payments (paragraph 11, 16). However, Eagle does not disclose but Florimond discloses processing refunds (paragraph 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Florimond in the teaching of Eagle, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15, in view of Webster (US 20040030593).
As per claim 16, Eagle discloses providing a notification including at least a payment receipt, to the owner application (paragraph 11).
However, Eagle does not disclose but Webster discloses notification including booked charter flight details, including booking confirmation (paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Webster in the teaching of Eagle, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagle, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15, in view of Nathanson (US 20060015435).
As per claim 20, Eagle discloses an owner application (paragraph 11, 36). However, Eagle does not disclose but Nathanson discloses selecting, by the matched plane owner, an autobid option at the seller application (paragraph 24, 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Nathanson in the teaching of Eagle, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 21, Eagle in view of Nathanson discloses all the limitations of claim 20. Eagle does not disclose but Nathanson further discloses wherein the step of selecting an autobid option further comprises the steps of: bidding at a maximum rate set by the plane owner if the charter flight request includes a bid amount equal to or greater than the maximum rate; electing not to submit a bid if the bid amount is lower than a minimum rate set by the plane owner (paragraph 62); determining a decrement percentage if the bid amount is greater than the minimum rate and less than the maximum rate; and bidding at a decremented rate between the minimum rate and maximum rate if the bid amount is between the minimum rate and maximum rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Nathanson in the teaching of Eagle, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628