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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on September 18, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant compares claim 1 of Example 40 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)) with the Applicant’s own independent claim. In example 40, the claim 1 is technical in nature and functions within a technical environment and effect/improves the technical environment itself (regarding traffic data relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance) and the data in example 40 claim 1 is technical network data (network delay, packet loss, or jitter; additional traffic data comprising Netflow protocol data) and not abstract information. This is not the case with Applicant’s claims. As stated int eh rejection, Applicant’s claims recite obtaining/receiving information/data where the information itself is non-technical and abstract in nature – e.g. passenger information, boarding pass information, departure times, other times, etc. The abstract information is then manipulated and analyzed (e.g. by comparing information, organizing information, and heavily using mathematical data and mathematical concepts (predicting, matrices, graphing/histograms, etc.,)) to determine more abstract information/data, and then providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. Note that the information/data gathered is not technical in nature and does not effect or improve the technical environment. Only abstract processes are effected (and possible improved) by Applicant’s abstract idea. As stated in the rejection and re-stated here, Applicant’s claims covers methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (predicting customer/passenger flow); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (passenger behavior, volume, and flow determinations and use of such information to make commercial/business decisions, and following rules or instructions) – these also fall under mental processes as there is evaluation and judgment involved in the claims based on results), mental processes (as discusses above), and mathematical concepts (discussed above). And Applicant only uses generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., (for example, computing devices, generic controller, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12); apart from scanning boarding pass and outputting information not much other technical elements shown/stated, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,) (in independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-19); and system, devices (computing, scanning, etc.,), implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning , etc., (independent claim 20)) as a tool to perform abstract processes. In other words, Applicant’s claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, and as stated previously, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. See detailed §101 rejection 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 non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-12 are directed to a device (i.e. product or article of manufacture), claims 13-19 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 20 is directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) and dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) recite obtaining/receiving information/data (where the information itself is non-technical and abstract in nature – e.g. passenger information, boarding pass information, departure times, other times, etc.,), data/information manipulation and analysis (heavily also using mathematical data and mathematical concepts (predicting, matrices, graphing/histograms, etc.,); comparing information, etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (for example, predicting, matrices, graphing/histograms, time analysis, etc.,). The limitations of the independent claims (1, 13, 20) and dependent claims (2-12, 14-19), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (predicting customer/passenger flow); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (passenger behavior, volume, and flow determinations and use of such information to make commercial/business decisions, and following rules or instructions) – these also fall under mental processes as there is evaluation and judgment involved in the claims based on results), mental processes (as discusses above), and mathematical concepts (discussed above). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (and in this case it’s evaluation crowd/people forecasting using abstract mathematical techniques without stating any specific algorithms and techniques), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, mathematical concepts grouping, and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., (for example, computing devices, generic controller, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12); apart from scanning boarding pass and outputting information not much other technical elements shown/stated, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,) (in independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-19); and system, devices (computing, scanning, etc.,), implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning , etc., (independent claim 20)) in the context of the independent claims (1, 13, 20) and dependent claims (2-12, 14-19), the independent claims (1, 13, 20) and dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) encompasses the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (predicting customer/passenger flow); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (passenger behavior, volume, and flow determinations and use of such information to make commercial/business decisions, and following rules or instructions) – these also fall under mental processes as there is evaluation and judgment involved in the claims based on results), mental processes (as discusses above), and mathematical concepts (discussed above)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., limitations/terms are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) and dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computer and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., and software (for example, computing devices, generic controller, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12); apart from scanning boarding pass and outputting information not much other technical elements shown/stated, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,) (in independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-19); and system, devices (computing, scanning, etc.,), implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning , etc., (independent claim 20)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0026-0031 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information manipulation and analysis (heavily also using mathematical data and mathematical concepts (predicting, matrices, graphing/histograms, etc.,); comparing information, etc.,) to determine more abstract information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (for example, predicting, matrices, graphing/histograms, time analysis, etc.,). These claims are directed towards organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (predicting customer/passenger flow); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (passenger behavior, volume, and flow determinations and use of such information to make commercial/business decisions, and following rules or instructions) – these also fall under mental processes as there is evaluation and judgment involved in the claims based on results), mental processes (as discusses above), and mathematical concepts (discussed above). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, computing devices, generic controller, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12); apart from scanning boarding pass and outputting information not much other technical elements shown/stated, implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,) (in independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-19); and system, devices (computing, scanning, etc.,), implied transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components (collecting information and outputs, etc.,), scanning , etc., (independent claim 20)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed discussion above.
Claims not rejected under prior art but remain rejected under §101
As per the independent claims (1, 13, 20), the closet prior art is Spencer et al., (US 2011/0227697), Kumar (US 7,899,699) and M. N. Laik, M. Choy and P. Sen, "Predicting Airline Passenger Load: A Case Study," 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014, pp. 33-38 (hereinafter Laik).
Spencer is directed towards passenger flow where reports may be generated to have information as desired. For example, a report may include at least one of, the average number of boarding pass holders in a queue as a function of time over a period of time, or the average wait time in a queue of a pass holder as a function of time over a period of time. The reports may be used to provide an historical analysis of the flow of passengers at the airport, which may be used for prediction purposes (0051). Spencer provides one or more of the following advantageous features including: reading of multiple boarding pass types, pass validation, auditable records of when a pass was read, simple user interface, queuing priority, queue time monitoring and reporting, in-depth reporting of passenger volumes, time and flow analysis, airline enquiry, remote monitoring of passenger flow and volume, and ready integration with various databases (0055).
Kumar discusses adaptive forecasting in the airline industry. Kumar uses symbol-key pairing for adaptive forecasting. A symbol is a variable that is being forecast. For example, the symbol could be the number of passengers, the number of bookings, the fuel used by a vehicle, miles traveled before repair needed, or any other variable that is capable of being forecast. A key is the level of detail of the symbol that is being forecast. For example, the detail could be "on a given flight," "in a given system," "in a particular market." Thus, a symbol-key pairing allows the variable that is to be forecast to be paired with a particular level of detail for the forecast. For example, a forecast for the number of passengers could be forecast on the level of the number of passengers on a passenger airline on all flights in the airline network departing at 8 a.m., the number of passengers on all flights departing from the Dallas-Fort Worth airport at 8 a.m., or the number of passengers on all flights in an airline's network.
Laik discusses predicting the passenger load for resource planning at the airport for day to day planning. A simulation model has been developed using the predicted passenger load as an input to compute the optimal number of check-in counters required to meet the service level agreement.
However, neither Spencer nor Kumar nor Laik discloses Applicant’s specific concept (and limitations) of determine time until takeoff data for the plurality of passengers based on the passenger data, the time until takeoff data for a passenger comprising a relative difference between a time when the passenger's boarding pass was scanned and a departure time of a flight associated with the passenger's boarding pass; determine one or more passenger flow histograms for one or more flights based on the time until takeoff data, each passenger flow histogram indicating a number of passengers having a time until takeoff within each of a predetermined number of time intervals before a scheduled flight; transform the passenger flow histograms into one or more continuous passenger flow profile curves…determine one or more output similarity matrices between the first flight and the plurality of past flights based on passenger flow profile curves associated with the first flight and the plurality of past flights…determine a predicted passenger flow profile curve for the first flight based on the passenger flow profile curves associated with the predetermined number of the plurality of past flights. Additionally note that although a specific portion is stated above that overcomes the prior art, it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that overcomes the prior art (no individual limitation is solely the reason for overcoming the prior art as the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations coming together collectively to form the concept). The prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole.
As per the dependent claims (2-12, 14-19), these claims depend on the independent claims and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that claims 1-20 are not allowable as all claim 1-20 remain rejected under §101 rejection above.
Conclusion
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights