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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 17-27 are pending per Applicant’s After Final Filing 06/26/2026 filing with the USPTO.
Claims 1, 11, 20, 23, and 26-27 are amended. Claims 4-6 and 13-16 are canceled. No claims are withdrawn and newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The Office characterizes the claims as being directed to organizing human activity, following instructions, and managing a schedule of runway time slots. This characterization oversimplifies the claims and fails to consider the claim as a whole, as required by MPEP § 2106.04 and relevant Federal Circuit precedent. Remarks p.17.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) provides, “"managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.” To illustrate this abstract subcategory, MPEP gives the example of “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)”. The Office maintains that the instant claims are steps an Air Traffic Controller might follow in scheduling runway slots.
Additionally the claims are found to be a business problem - fundamental economic practices. Where resource management is an old and well known practice of managing a finite resource – limit time slots for the runway.
The Office maintains that all elements of the claimed invention were considered in the examination process. For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to a specific computer-implemented technique for dynamically monitoring and controlling utilization of physical airport infrastructure using real-time operational data received from external air traffic data service provider computing systems. Remarks p. 17.
It is unclear how this argument makes the claimed invention patent eligible. The Office maintains the claimed invention is to the management and scheduling of airport resources. Where “dynamically monitoring and controlling utilization of physical airport infrastructure” is simply a synonyms for the management and scheduling of airport resources. The claims receive data, process that data, and then determine the best runway slot for an aircraft to be assigned and used based on known data. Finally the optimal slotting is communicated (electronic notifications). The claimed steps remain the same regardless if is two or four planes/runways/slots.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The Office's characterization of the claims as merely "following instructions" is inconsistent with the actual claim language. No step of claims 1, 11, and 20 require instructing a pilot, dispatcher, air traffic controller, or any other person to perform an activity. Remarks p. 18.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Nothing in the specification of the claims indicates the aircraft are autonomous/unmanned or that the something other than a human receives the transmitted notification. Further the instant Specification provides, “slot data may indicate the time when the flight is scheduled to use the allocated runway for taking off at a departure airport” (Spec. [21]). By definition a schedule (slot assignment) is a plan for what (flight), where (allocated runway), and when (time when the flight is scheduled). A schedule by its very nature is a set of instructions. The slot allocation (instructions) of the claimed invention tells the aircraft (pilot), where to be (runway) and when (takeoff time). This information is communicated to the airport computing system – where under the broadest reasonable interpretation the visual representation is read and understood by human(s).
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
the claims do not merely determine a preferred schedule. The claims specifically improve operation of airport resource allocation systems by automatically identifying runway occupancy conflicts, evaluating runway congestion conditions, determining alternative runway availability, updating slot assignment records, and propagating those updates throughout airport operational systems in real time. These operations improve utilization of airport infrastructure and reduce inefficiencies caused by changing aircraft departure conditions. Remarks p. 18.
Respectfully, even if the claimed invention improves the operation of airport resources, it does not automatically follow that the claimed invention is patent eligible. The Office finds that the claimed invention solves a business problem of resource management rather than a technical problem. An abstract idea implemented within a computer environment does not automatically make the claimed invention is patent eligible. More to the point a general purpose computer is flexible - it can do anything it is programmed to do. Programming a general purpose computer to perform a particular function does not constitute an improvement to the computer itself or an improvement to a technical field or technology – see MPEP 2106.05(b) “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded)”.
In the instant claims the computing elements are viewed as a tool thus it cannot provide significantly more or practical application. For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 expressly recite the technological mechanisms that provide the disclosed improvement. Remarks p.20.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. This argument is addressed above in 5.a.-5.d. For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not preempt scheduling generally, nor do the claims recite a generalized concept of assigning resources. Rather, when considered as a whole, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a specific and non-conventional sequence of technological operations. Remarks p. 22.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The claims use the common data points of availability or utilization in determining which slots to assign. There is nothing unconventional about the assignment or reassignment of resources using availability or utilization in the scheduling art. Further the specification provides that the claimed invention “computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the block(s) of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams.” (Spec. [73])
This argument is addressed above in 5.a.-5.d. For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental process) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-10 and 21-23 are to a method (process), claims 11-19 and 24-26 are to a system (machine), and claims 20 and 27 teaches non-transitory computer-readable media (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. (Currently amended) A computer-implemented method executed by an airport slot monitoring computing system, comprising:
receiving, from one or more air traffic data service provider computing systems, slot scheduled data and flight tracking data for a plurality of aircraft in real time according to an electronic messaging protocol;
storing the received slot scheduled data and the flight tracking data in a memory of the airport slot monitoring computing system;
retrieving, from the memory of the airport slot monitoring computing system, slot scheduled data and flight tracking data for a flight of an aircraft, wherein the slot scheduled data is updated in the memory of the airport slot monitoring computer system in real time as the slot scheduled data and the flight tracking data is received by the airport slot monitoring computing system, wherein the slot scheduled data indicates a first slot on a first runway assigned to be occupied by the aircraft for the flight at a departure airport at a scheduled takeoff time, and the flight tracking data comprises an anticipated takeoff time;
processing slot occupancy data of the departure airport stored in a slot utilization database to compute usage patterns that indicate a slot occupancy of the first runway by a first set of one or more aircraft and a slot occupancy of a second runway by a second set of one or more aircraft of the departure airport for a designated window of time;
determining a slot adjustment for the flight based on the anticipated takeoff time and the slot usage patterns at the departure airport by:
based at least on the anticipated takeoff time of the flight being earlier than the scheduled takeoff time associated with the first slot, determining whether a second slot scheduled for the anticipated takeoff time of the flight is available on the first runway for occupancy by the aircraft based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the second slot being available, re-assigning the second slot for occupancy by the aircraft for the flight by updating, in the slot utilization database, a slot assignment record associated with the flight of the aircraft to replace the first slot with the second slot as the slot adjustment;
based on no slot being available on the first runway for occupancy by the aircraft for the anticipated takeoff time of the flight, determining whether a third slot scheduled for the anticipated takeoff time of the flight is available on the second runway of the departure airport for occupancy by the aircraft based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the third slot being available, re-assigning the third slot for occupancy by the aircraft for the flight by updating, in the slot utilization database, the slot assignment record associated with the flight to replace the first slot with the third slot as the slot adjustment;
based at least on the anticipated takeoff time of the flight being aligned with the scheduled takeoff time of the first slot,
determining whether the second runway is less congested than the first runway for the scheduled takeoff time based on comparing the slot occupancy of the first runway and the slot occupancy of the second runway for the scheduled takeoff time;
based at least on the second runway being less congested than the first runway for the scheduled takeoff time, determining whether a fourth slot scheduled for the anticipated takeoff time of the flight is available on the second runway for occupancy by the aircraft based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the fourth slot being available, re-assigning the fourth slot for occupancy by the aircraft for the flight by updating, in the slot utilization database, the slot assignment record associated with the flight to replace the first slot with the fourth slot as the slot adjustment; and
transmitting, via a network interface, an electronic generating a notification of the slot adjustment for the flight to an airport computing system to update the slot occupancy data in real time, wherein the airport computing system is configured to generate a frontend graphical user interface configured to provide visual representations of flight status data including the slot occupancy.
The claims are directed towards tracking, managing, and adjusting airport resources (runway slots). Where a slot is interpreted in light of the specification to be a period of time (e.g. taxi time on runway 3), rather than a tangible space (e.g. departure gate 3). The Office finds that the management of a schedule (series of slots) to be the management of personal behavior – following instruction, where the schedule tells one where, when and what to do at a specific time (e.g. Delta Flight # 2323 to taxi on runway 3 at 7:00 pm on Sept. 26, 2025). Also see Spec [39] “For example, the bar 415-1 at 14:05 has a height indicating one flight. This indicates that there is one flight assigned to the time slot at 14:05. The bar 415-2 at 14:10 has a height indicating three flights, which represents there are three flights assigned to the time slot at 14:10. The gaps (the absence of a bar at certain time slots), such as 14:30, suggest that no flights are assigned to that time slot.”. The claimed invention looks for the best available time slot for the runway to assign a flight to the available time slot of the runway. The following of instructions is an abstract idea – organizing certain methods of organizing human activity.
Further the management of resources such as time slots is found to be a business solution to a business problem - fundamental economic practices. Where resource management is an old and well known practice of managing a finite resource – limit time slots for the runway.
The claims are further found to fall within the abstract category of a mental processes, where a human is given the known information with the assistance of a computer, e.g. within a computing environment. Where the assignment of slots as is something commonly handled by a human using his mind’s ability to make a judgement call. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) “FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.” Where the steps taking in the claimed invention are the same a person might take in scheduling slots.
For all of these reasons the claims are found to fall within the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving, accessing, and generating elements are determined to be insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The system is to a general purpose computer, see Spec [73].
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Where claims 2, 7, 9, 12, 17, and 19 further defines of data, which is found to add to the step data gathering that does not provide significantly more or practical application.
Where claims 3-6 and 13-16 where the assignments of the flights to time slots adds to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Where 8, 10, and 18 detail additional data which is found to add to the step data gathering as well as the basic functioning of the computer these claims do not provide significantly more or practical application.
Where 21, 22, 24, 25 further defines slot occupancy data where the courts have found data regardless of the content to be abstract.
Where 23 and 26 updates the interface, which is found to be a step of outputting therefore it is insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 27 updates database (receiving data) and updates the interface, which are found to be a steps of receiving and outputting therefore it is insignificant extra solution activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
White et al (US 2012/0221233 A1) teaches skilled in the art would understand that each aircraft and airline files a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") for each flight. The flight plan information 150 may include a scheduled takeoff time (e.g., wheels up time). Upon receiving the flight plan information 150 for a specific aircraft, the processor 120 may calculate an estimated taxi time ("ETT") for that aircraft. For instance, the ETT may be based on the airport information 160, such as gate assignments, runway usage, etc.
Hodges et al (US 2019/0369590 A1) teaches Systems, methods, and machine readable media are provided for slot capacity adjustment. A utilization rate of a facility for a plurality of time slots is determined. Slots having a utilization rate that can have an associated capacity increased are identified and the capacity for the slots having a utilization rate that can be increased is increased. Slots having a utilization rate that can have an associated capacity decreased are identified and these slots have their capacity decreased.
Bristow et al (US 11,734,623 B2) teaches a fleet scheduler includes a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by the processor, the program including instructions for: gathering data representing real-world conditions; generating and maintaining predictive models based on the gathered data; and generating a master schedule for a plurality of vehicles based on the gathered data and the predictive models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
