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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 17-27 are pending per Applicant’s 12/31/2025 filing with the USPTO.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20 are amended. Claims 4-6 and 13-16 are canceled. Claims 21-27 are newly added. No claims are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2 and 12 are sufficient to overcome the claim objections of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 35 USC § 103 are sufficient to overcome the claim objections of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception such as a mental process, a method of organizing human activity, or a mathematical concept. Rather, the claimed method requires retrieving, processing, and updating multiple structured datasets including slot schedules, real-time flight tracking data, and slot occupancy data stored in computer memory and processed within defined temporal windows. These operations involve real-time data ingestion, correlation across databases, and automated state updates that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, even with pen and paper. Remarks p. 15-16.
It is noted the claims were not found to be direct towards the abstract idea of mental process, see 10/01/25 OA at page 3. For this reason the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
claim 1 is not directed to a fundamental economic practice or a generic scheduling abstraction. Rather, claim 1 addresses a technical operational control problem specific to computerized airport runway slot management systems. Claim 1 is expressly rooted in a computing system that interfaces with physical airport infrastructure, including runways and departure sequencing. The claimed method applies data processing to dynamically control aircraft departures in real time, distinguishing it from merely organizing human activity. Remarks p. 16.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The specification discloses “the system may process flight traffic data and/or slot scheduled data received from one or more service providers” (Spec [16]). It further discloses “database 110 may serve as the central repository for storing slot data (e.g., slot allocations) and flight traffic data provided by one or more third-party service providers (such as the traffic data provider (TDP) 120 and the slot data provider (SDP) 125)” (Spec [19]). The Specification is silent on who./what the air traffic data provider is, i.e. manual or computerized.
The claimed invention is for the scheduling of runway slots. Scheduling of resources (resource management) is a fundamental economic practice. In the context of the claimed invention runways are the resource being managed. Where the specification provides the purpose of the claimed invention is to “monitoring flights and adjusting slot allocation to optimize air traffic operation”. The claimed invention looks for opening in the resource schedule (slot occupancy for a window of time). If an opening/availability is found the resource (runway 1 or 2), it then assigned to a flight by (re-assigning the flight). The determination is repeated until an opening/availability is found (third/fourth slot).
The assigning of a flight to a slot on a runway is found to be an abstract idea of organizing cert methods of human activity, which includes following instructions. A schedule is a set of instruction tell someone (pilot, air traffic control, crew, passengers, etc.) where to be an when – runway 1, at the first time slot. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
assuming that claim 1 is viewed as involving an abstract idea at step one, it is nonetheless patent eligible under Alice step two because it recites an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than generic computer implementation that is integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a non-conventional and ordered combination of computing elements, including real-time ingestion of flight tracking data, analysis of slot occupancy patterns within a defined time window, and a structured decision hierarchy that differentiates between early departures and on-time departures while evaluating slot availability across multiple runways. This is not result-oriented functional language; rather, it defines a specialized algorithm tailored to airport traffic control constraints. Remarks p. 16.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The Office agrees that the claimed invention real-time ingestion of flight tracking data, analysis of slot occupancy patterns within a defined time window, and a structured decision hierarchy that differentiates between early departures and on-time departures while evaluating slot availability across multiple runways; however this is found to be the abstract idea rather than significantly more or a practical application when considered individually and as part of the ordered limitations as a whole.
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 1-20 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) 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 are to a method (process), claims 11-19 are to a system (machine), and claim 20 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. 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).
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:
retrieving, from a memory of the airport slot monitoring computing system, slot scheduled data and flight tracking data for a flight in real time, wherein the slot scheduled data indicates a first slot on a first runway assigned to 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 and a slot occupancy of a second runway 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 based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the second slot being available, re-assigning the second slot to the flight by updating, in the slot utilization database, a slot assignment record associated with the flight to replace the first slot with the second slot as the slot adjustment;
based on no slot being available on the first runway 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 based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the third slot being available, re-assigning the third slot to 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 based on the slot occupancy data;
based on the fourth slot being available, re-assigning the fourth slot to 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.
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.
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 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 out putting 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.
Laluque et al (US 12,530,979 B2) teaches an improve aircraft flight procedures and flight plans in such a way as to best manage available airspace and available equipment such as runways.
Gaertner et al (US 12,482,364 B2) teaches providing taxi time information for an airport includes receiving, at a computing system from a device, a request for taxi time information associated with an airport. The method includes determining, at the computing system based on aircraft location information data from a set of aircraft, taxi time information for the airport for a time window.
Brozat (US 2010/0063716 A1) teaches minimize departure delays, in a first optimization step, the alternative take-off runway is allocated to those flights whose times of taxiing to an alternative take-off runway are shorter than to the initial take-off runway. If the take-off capacity bottleneck on the initial take-off runway continues to exist, requiring further flights to be rescheduled in addition.
White et al (US 9,171,476 B2) teaches method including receiving airport data from an airport network, receiving surface surveillance data for specific segments of an airport area, identifying predicted conflicts within one of the segments based on the airport data and surface surveillance data, and allocating a taxi time slot for the flight. Another embodiment of the disclosure of this application is related to a system comprising a user interface displaying information related to flight plan data and airport data received from an airport network, and a surface management module receiving the airport data and surface surveillance data for specific segments of an airport area, identifying predicted conflicts within one of the segments based on the airport data and surface surveillance data, and allocating a taxi time slot for the flight.
Baiada et al (US 2003/0139875 A1) teaches A computer program product, that allows an aviation system to temporally allocate aircraft slot times during a specified period for the flow of a plurality of aircraft toward a specified fix point, has, according to the present invention: (1) a means for collecting and storing specified data and criteria, (2) a means for processing, at a specified instant for which it is desired to allocate the slot times.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights