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
This Office action is in response to correspondence received August 21, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-9, 11, and 13-18 are dependent on claim 1 and recite elements that lack antecedent basis. The terms, listed below, lack antecedent basis in claim 1 and therefore claims are indefinite.
Claim 4: the diagram; the boarding pass.
Claim 5: the display device.
Claim 6: the original boarding number (claim 1 says boarding number, unclear if claim six is referring to this or to introduce a new element).
Claim 7: the final boarding number (similar to claim 6 with original)
Elements including “the boarding pass,” “the original boarding numbers,” “the display device,” and “the final boarding number,” have no antecedent basis.
Claim 8: the seat type
Claim 9: the original boarding number
Claim 11: the original boarding number
Claim 13: the passenger’s final boarding number
Claim 14: the boarding pass
Claim 15: the seat map, the assigned seat.
Claim 16: the boarding pass, the assigned seat
Claim 17: the final boarding number of the next passenger
Claim 18: the display device
Therefore, claims 4-9, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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 without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
efficiently boarding passengers onto an airplane,
[having] passenger information; assigning boarding numbers to a plurality of passengers; [indications marking] when passengers ticketed for the seats are boarding the aircraft according to the assigned boarding numbers.
Claim 2:
efficiently boarding passengers onto an airplane, passenger information including a passenger number, record locator, assigned seat, seat type, priority status, and number of passengers in a party associated with each passenger; assigning, an original boarding number to each passenger based on the assigned seat of the passenger, wherein the original boarding numbers are assigned such that passengers with window seats near a rear of the airplane are assigned lower original boarding numbers than passengers with aisle seats near a front of the airplane; identifying, parties of passengers based on identical record locators; assigning, a final boarding number to each passenger in an identified party, wherein the final boarding number for each passenger in the party is a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party; assigning, a group number to each passenger based on the final boarding number, wherein passengers with lower final boarding numbers are assigned lower group numbers; [marking each aisle of an airplane with a color] ; generating, a boarding pass for each passenger including the group number, final boarding number, seat number, seat type, an indication of whether the seat is on a left or right side of the airplane, an indication of which colored aisle leads to the passenger's assigned seat, and a diagram of the airplane seating with a colored pathway from an entrance of the airplane to the passenger's assigned seat; and [presenting] the boarding number of a next passenger to board the airplane.
Claim 19:
efficiently boarding passengers onto an airplane, the method comprising: storing, passenger information including a passenger number, record locator, assigned seat, seat type, priority status, and number of passengers in a party associated with each passenger; assigning, an original boarding number to each passenger based on the assigned seat of the passenger, wherein the original boarding numbers are assigned such that passengers with window seats near a rear of the airplane are assigned lower original boarding numbers than passengers with aisle seats near a front of the airplane; identifying, parties of passengers based on identical record locators; assigning, a final boarding number to each passenger in an identified party, wherein the final boarding number for each passenger in the party is a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party; assigning, , a group number to each passenger based on the final boarding number, wherein passengers with lower final boarding numbers are assigned lower group numbers; generating, , a boarding pass for each passenger including the group number, final boarding number, seat number, seat type, and an indication of whether the seat is on a left or right side of the airplane; and presenting the boarding number of a next passenger to board the airplane.
The steps described above, in claims 1, 2, and 19 are a certain method of organizing human activity - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The steps organize people on a plane – how they board, where they board. They rules that people are given to follow and therefore these limitations in combination above are interpreted as an abstract idea -certain methods of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, listed below, alone and in combination, amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery (lights in a plane cabin):
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented system
a database comprising information
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
by the processor
indicator lights above seats on the airplane, wherein the indicator lights are illuminated
Claim 2:
A computer-implemented system for
a database comprising information
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
by the processor,
illuminating each aisle of the airplane with a different color
controlling, by the processor, a display device to display
Claim 19:
computer-implemented method
by a processor, in a database,
by the processor,
displaying, by the processor on a display device,
See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Computers are known to have a display device and a processor, and a database is simply relational data stored in a computer. Therefore the combination amounts to no more than a computer (processor, display device) and a database which is used for storing data, according to the claims. Here, in addition to a computer, is the ordinary machinery of lights on an airplane such as aisles or lights above seats. These elements are apply it elements as they are, in their ordinary capacity, information elements (seat is here, aisle is here), and they are being used to display information, no different from a sign or signal. In combination, they are merely a display device combined with the ordinary computer elements described above, displaying information about where something is (a seat, or an aisle) As these are claimed to be no more than applied to the abstract idea of claims 1, 2, and 19, they are not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application section is carried over to step 2B. For the same reason that there is not a practical application, that the elements are apply it elements to an abstract idea, there is not significantly more.
Claims 3, 4, 6-12, and 14-16 further describe the abstract idea of claim 1 including diagrams and indicators on boarding passes.
Claim 13 describes an additional element of an audio or visual alert which is similar to an output of a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity to communicate the result of data collection (passenger order) and analysis (order is out of order), and therefore is an apply it step both alone and in combination (with the other output devices and ordinary computing devices and steps).
Claims 5, 17, 18, and 20 further recite the positioning of a display device and/or a second display device, which is an apply it element as the display device in each of these positions is operating in its “ordinary capacity,” see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Nor is this a meaningful limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(e), as this is a combination of a display device and where the display device would be placed. This is not a new combination of steps but merely stating that a display device would be placed at a certain height.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”).
Per claim 1, Cawley teaches A computer-implemented system for efficiently boarding passengers onto an airplane, the system comprising: passenger information in pars 033-034: “FIG. 2 illustrates a representative technique for boarding an aircraft in accordance with some embodiments of the invention. This technique is illustrated in FIG. 2 using the seat map shown in FIG. 1, although it should be appreciated that the technique shown may be used to board aircraft having any suitable configuration, having any suitable number of rows of seats to board, and having any suitable number of seats in each row.
In FIG. 2, the numerals within the seat icons represent the order in which passengers in these seats are boarded. Thus, the number 1 indicates the first passenger to board the plane, the number 2 indicates the second passenger to board the plane, and so on. Thus, FIG. 2 illustrates that passengers board the aircraft so that those who are assigned seats in the last row (i.e., row R29) board the aircraft first, with the passengers assigned the window seats (i.e., seats R29A and R29F) sitting down prior to those assigned the middle seats (i.e., seats R29B and R29E), who sit down prior to those assigned the aisle seats (i.e., seats R29C and R29D). After the passengers in row R29 board the aircraft, the passengers assigned seats in the next rear-most row (i.e., in the example shown, row R28) board the aircraft.”
See par 045 for computer-implemented system: “FIG. 6 depicts a general purpose computing device in the form of a computer 610. Components of computer 610 may include, but are not limited to, a processing unit 620, a system memory 630, and a system bus 621 that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit 620. The system bus 621 may be any of several types of bus structures including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. By way of example, and not limitation, such architectures include Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus also known as Mezzanine bus.”
Then Cawley teaches a processor in par 46: “Computer 610 typically includes a variety of computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by computer 610 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and non-removable media.”
Cawley then teaches and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: assigning, by the processor, boarding numbers to a plurality of passengers in par 34: “FIG. 2, the numerals within the seat icons represent the order in which passengers in these seats are boarded. Thus, the number 1 indicates the first passenger to board the plane, the number 2 indicates the second passenger to board the plane, and so on. Thus, FIG. 2 illustrates that passengers board the aircraft so that those who are assigned seats in the last row (i.e., row R29) board the aircraft first, with the passengers assigned the window seats (i.e., seats R29A and R29F) sitting down prior to those assigned the middle seats (i.e., seats R29B and R29E), who sit down prior to those assigned the aisle seats (i.e., seats R29C and R29D). After the passengers in row R29 board the aircraft, the passengers assigned seats in the next rear-most row (i.e., in the example shown, row R28) board the aircraft.”
See also par 038: “The article depicted in FIG. 3 includes a box for each seat depicted in the seat map shown in FIG. 1, arranged in the same fashion as on the seat map. Thus, article 301 represents twenty-nine rows of seats, with six seats in each row except for one (i.e., row R18), and three seats on either side of the aisle. In some embodiments of the invention, passengers may stand on article 301 in the box corresponding to their assigned seat, so that when boarding is to commence, he/she may board the aircraft in the manner described above. Of course, a physical article need not use a box to depict a space corresponding to a seat on the aircraft. Any suitable shape may be shown.” The numerals assigned to the seats teaches assigning boarding numbers to passengers because the passengers have seats and their boarding numbers are assigned to them, see also Figs 2-3.
Then Cawley teaches boarding the aircraft according to the assigned boarding numbers in par 34: “In FIG. 2, the numerals within the seat icons represent the order in which passengers in these seats are boarded. Thus, the number 1 indicates the first passenger to board the plane, the number 2 indicates the second passenger to board the plane, and so on. Thus, FIG. 2 illustrates that passengers board the aircraft so that those who are assigned seats in the last row (i.e., row R29) board the aircraft first, with the passengers assigned the window seats (i.e., seats R29A and R29F) sitting down prior to those assigned the middle seats (i.e., seats R29B and R29E), who sit down prior to those assigned the aisle seats (i.e., seats R29C and R29D). After the passengers in row R29 board the aircraft, the passengers assigned seats in the next rear-most row (i.e., in the example shown, row R28) board the aircraft.”
Cawley does not each indicator lights above seats on the airplane, wherein the indicator lights are illuminated when passengers ticketed for the seats are boarding.
Stoner teaches occupancy indicators for boarding. See abstract.
Stoner teaches indicator lights above seats on the airplane, wherein the indicator lights are illuminated when passengers ticketed for the seats are boarding in pars 017-018: “17-18 Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates a passenger seating section 100 within an aircraft cabin. The passenger seating section 100 includes a plurality of seats, such as, for example, a first passenger seat 102, a second passenger seat 104 and a third passenger seat 106. Associated with each of the first passenger seat 102, the second passenger seat 104 and the third passenger seat 106 is an occupancy indicator, such as, respectively, a first occupancy indicator 103, a second occupancy indicator 105 and a third occupancy indicator 107. In various embodiments, each occupancy indicator may be disposed overhead a corresponding seat and be attached to or disposed proximate a corresponding passenger service unit—e.g., a first passenger service unit 113, a second passenger seating unit 115 and a third passenger seating unit 117—which typically includes a reading light, an air conditioning port and a flight attendant call button. Each occupancy indicator may, in various embodiments, be electrically connected to a processor 108 via a bus network 110.Each occupancy indicator typically includes a light, such as, for example, a first light 112 that corresponds to the first passenger seat 102, a second light 114 that corresponds to the second passenger seat 104 and a third light 116 that corresponds to the third passenger seat 106. The light corresponding to each seat indicates to an observer (e.g., a passenger looking for an unoccupied seat) whether or not a particular seat is occupied or otherwise reserved for occupancy. In various embodiments, this operation is accomplished by selection of suitable light colors for each occupancy indicator. For example, the status of an occupied or a reserved seat may be indicated by a red light while the status of an unoccupied or a non-reserved seat may be indicated by a green light. Positioning the occupancy indicator (e.g., the light) downward of each passenger service unit enables a passenger in search of an unoccupied or a non-reserved seat (or a plurality of such unoccupied or non-reserved seats) to scan the entire cabin without having to walk to the seat or seats to observe the occupancy status.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Stoner teaches this limitation as the passengers are boarding and the different colored lights are on when passengers ticketed for the seats are boarding.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passenger order boarding teaching of Cawley with the indicator lights over seats while boarding teaching of Stoner because one would be motivated to include additional visual indications on the plane so that passengers would know that the seats they are going to sit in are available or occupied. This would provide a re-affirmation that they are headed to the correct seats as occupied seats would be eliminated from the possibilities of the seats they could occupy. If a seat were marked as occupied, then a passenger could re-check their boarding information, which the passenger could have mistakenly remembered incorrectly, before taking someone’s seat in error. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Stoner.
Cawley does not teach a database comprising passenger information.
Lele teaches a system for swapping seats with passengers. See abstract.
Lele teaches a database comprising passenger information in par 17: “FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a seating system 10 for an airline. Database 120 stores the seating configuration of the aircraft for a flight, seat assignments for the flight, and may include other relevant information such as passenger identification and frequent flyer status. In general, the database may store seat assignments for many or all of the airline's flights during a certain period of time (e.g., all flights in the next 365 days). For each seat on a given flight, the database contains information that either identifies the assigned passenger or reflects that the seat is currently unassigned.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding assignment teaching of Cawley with the database comprising passenger information teaching of Lele because one would be motivated to organize passenger information in a database so it could be accessed by queries and have additional definitions added to it such as boarding number information. This would allow for the capabilities of databases (queries, sorts, filters, etc) to facilitate using passenger information. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Lele.
Per claim 9, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley further teaches determine a seating configuration of the airplane, the seating configuration including a number of rows, a number of seats per row, and a location of each seat; and assign the original boarding numbers based on the determined seating configuration in par 040: “FIG. 5 depicts a representative lighting system 501 which emits a pattern of visible light toward the floor of the pre-boarding waiting area which represents the seats on an aircraft to be boarded. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the seats represented in the pattern are arranged in a manner similar to that which is shown on physical article 301 (FIG. 3), with twenty-nine contiguous rows of seats to be boarded, each row except for one having six seats, and each row having three seats on either side of the aisle. However, it should be appreciated that embodiments of the invention are not limited to generating a representation of any particular arrangement of seats, as any number of rows may be shown, each having any suitable number of seats, and any suitable number of seats on each side of the aisle. It should also be appreciated that lighting system 501 is not limited to displaying only a single representation of seats on an aircraft. For example, multiple different representations may be generated, each representing different blocks of seats on the aircraft. For example, projection system 501 could render multiple representations, with one showing the seats depicted by article 401A (FIG. 4), another showing the seats depicted by article 401B, and another showing the seats depicted by article 401C. Any suitable number of representations, each representing any suitable block of seats, may be projected.”
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”), further in view of Pocai, US Pat No 12060169 B2 (“Pocai”).
Per claim 5, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1. Cawley does not teach wherein the display device comprises a plurality of screens positioned at eye level, chest level, waist level, hanging from a ceiling, or on a ground of a boarding area.
Pocai teaches a system for passenger information including boarding. See abstract.
Pocai teaches wherein the display device comprises a plurality of screens positioned at eye level, chest level, waist level, hanging from a ceiling, or on a ground of a boarding area in Figure 12 Item 130 and col 10 ln 10-20: “An information presentation equipment (100) is any set of visual signaling formed by devices capable of projecting (110) and/or emitting and/or presenting images and lights and of emitting visual and audible signals in general, being directly connected to the data processing center. The information presentation equipment (100) can also comprise auxiliary support monitors (130) distributed throughout the airport infrastructure environments.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding assignment teaching of Cawley with the display device at hanging from a ceiling teaching of Pocai because one would be motivated to have a ceiling hanging with a display screen so that people’s view of important information would be visible even with other people standing around, which is common in passenger boarding. For this reason one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Pocai.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”), further in view of Leff, “Does Southwest Give Lower Boarding Priority to Customers They Know Will Pay Up.” [online] View From the Wing, available at: < https://viewfromthewing.com/does-southwest-give-lower-boarding-priority-to-customers-they-know-will-pay-up/ > published on May 3, 2019 (“Leff”).
Per claim 6, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley does not teach the passenger information further includes a priority category, and wherein the processor is configured to assign the original boarding number to each passenger further based on the priority category of the passenger.
Leff teaches southwest air pre assigning seats. See page 1.
Leff teaches the passenger information further includes a priority category, and wherein the processor is configured to assign the original boarding number to each passenger further based on the priority category of the passenger on page 3 where is explained that business select gets the first numbers, then elite tiers (teaching priority categories), then everyone else, and then the boarding numbers are assigned as taught in page 3 (A1-A15, teaching boarding numbers).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding organization teaching of Cawley with the assigning original boarding numbers based on priority status teaching of Leff because one would be motivated to assign based on priority to encourage customers to self-select using priority (ie paying or being loyal to an airline). This would enable those who are the most valuable or loyal customers to get advantages, and those who are less interested to get fewer benefits. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Leff.
Claim(s) 7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”), further in view of Seemann, Katie, “Southwest Airlines Boarding Process & Groups – Everything you need to know,” UpgradedPoints [online], available at: < https://web.archive.org/web/20240201215625/https://upgradedpoints.com/travel/airlines/southwest-airlines-boarding-process-groups/ > archived on February 1, 2024 (“Seemann”).
Per claim 7, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley does not teach the processor is configured to assign the final boarding number to each passenger in the identified party by: determining a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party; and assigning the lowest original boarding number as the final boarding number for each passenger in the party.
Seemann teaches Southwest Airlines boarding procedure as of February 2024.
Seemann teaches the processor is configured to assign the final boarding number to each passenger in the identified party by: determining a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party; and assigning the lowest original boarding number as the final boarding number for each passenger in the party on page 5 under Family Boarding/Active Duty Military where after the A group (A30) Families can board as a group, which teaches a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger, and assigning the lowest original boarding number as the final boarding number for each passenger because their number is the number following A30, number under a broadest reasonable interpretation that which is counted after A30.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding order organization teaching of Cawley with the group boarding teaching of Seeman because one would be motivated to keep a family group together as they could not separate according to a southwest style system. This would provide the minimum disruption to the boarding order. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Seemann.
Per claim 17, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley does not teach a second display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control the second display device to display the boarding number of a second next passenger to board the airplane simultaneously with the next passenger, and wherein the second next passenger has a final boarding number consecutive with the final boarding number of the next passenger.
Seemann teaches a second display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control the second display device to display the boarding number of a second next passenger to board the airplane simultaneously with the next passenger, and wherein the second next passenger has a final boarding number consecutive with the final boarding number of the next passenger in page 4 where in the picture the person in C30 is the one previous to the one in C31 who boards immediately after them teaching this limitation. Two display screens are shown one for each passenger. The final boarding numbers are taught and are consecutive.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding order organization teaching of Cawley with the second display device and consecutive final boarding numbers teaching of Seeman because Seemann teaches that the monitors “let you know which group should be lined up.” See page 4. This would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine with Cawley and Seemann so that passengers could organize themselves more easily. Further by having two lines it helps to organize the boarding area better as one long line would be difficult to fit in a boarding area. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Seemann.
Per claim 18, Cawley, Stoner, Lele, and Seemann teach the limitations of claim 17, above. Cawley does not teach the display device and second display device are positioned to form two boarding lines in a pre-boarding area.
Seemann teaches the display device and second display device are positioned to form two boarding lines in a pre-boarding area in page 4 and 3 (“you’ll notice 2 lines of people lining up in rows…”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding order organization teaching of Cawley with the second display device and consecutive final boarding numbers teaching of Seeman because Seemann teaches that the monitors “let you know which group should be lined up.” See page 4. This would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine with Cawley and Seemann so that passengers could organize themselves more easily. Further by having two lines it helps to organize the boarding area better as one long line would be difficult to fit in a boarding area. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Seemann.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”), Nightengalewings, reddit r/mildlyinfuriating [online], published March 28, 2024 (see verification attached), available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1bpvswb/gate_check_attendant_asked_if_i_wanted_aisle_or/?rdt=43695 (“Nightengalewings”)
Per claim 8, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley does not teach wherein the seat type indicates whether the assigned seat is a window seat, a middle seat, an aisle seat, or a center seat in a row of the airplane having at least four seats.
Nightengalewings teaches a picture of a boarding pass that has a specific seat assignment and the kind of seat it is (“aisle”).
Nightengalewings teaches wherein the seat type indicates whether the assigned seat is a window seat, a middle seat, an aisle seat, or a center seat in a row of the airplane having at least four seats in the picture, 35D and Aisle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding assignment and information teaching of Cawley with the seat type indicates aisle seat teaching of Nightengalewings because one would want to provide clarifying information so that people would be more likely to find the right seat, and therefore would not take up extra time being lost in the airplane. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Nightengalewings.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley, US 20160039539 A1 (“Cawley”), in view of Stoner et al., US 20210291983 (“Stoner”), further in view of Lele et al., US 20120010910 A1 (“Lele”), further in view of Bryan Alexander [online], published on November 19, 2017 available at: https://bryanalexander.org/travel/into-the-future-with-air-travel-dystopia/ (“Alexander”).
Per claim 12, Cawley, Stoner, and Lele teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Cawley does not teach the processor is further configured to generate visual indicators on each passenger's boarding pass that indicate an amount of carry-on luggage allowed for each passenger based on their assigned seat type.
Alexander teaches travel thoughts. See abstract.
Alexander teaches basic economy which teaches assigned seat type and amount of carry on is no carry on, and there is visual indicators the letters no and carry on, on the boarding pass pictured.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boarding assignment and organization teaching of Cawley with the carry on indicators based on seat type teaching of Alexander because one would be motivated to have a visual reference that the customer would have so that the customer has notice of the carry on allowance. In this way the customer would have a reminder and also, similar to a contract, an indication of the agreement between the customer and airline. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cawley with Alexander.
Therefore, claims 1, 5-9, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure:
Cawley, US PGPUB 20160039539 A1, teaches a processor, as shown in rejection of claim 1, and also teaches:
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: assigning, by the processor, an original boarding number to each passenger based on the assigned seat of the passenger, wherein the original boarding numbers are assigned such that passengers with window seats near a rear of the airplane are assigned lower original boarding numbers than passengers with aisle seats near a front of the airplane
in par 034: “In FIG. 2, the numerals within the seat icons represent the order in which passengers in these seats are boarded. Thus, the number 1 indicates the first passenger to board the plane, the number 2 indicates the second passenger to board the plane, and so on. Thus, FIG. 2 illustrates that passengers board the aircraft so that those who are assigned seats in the last row (i.e., row R29) board the aircraft first, with the passengers assigned the window seats (i.e., seats R29A and R29F) sitting down prior to those assigned the middle seats (i.e., seats R29B and R29E), who sit down prior to those assigned the aisle seats (i.e., seats R29C and R29D). After the passengers in row R29 board the aircraft, the passengers assigned seats in the next rear-most row (i.e., in the example shown, row R28) board the aircraft.
But does not teach, among other limitations,
identifying, by the processor, parties of passengers based on identical record locators
assigning, by the processor, a final boarding number to each passenger in an identified party, wherein the final boarding number for each passenger in the party is a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party
Lele, US 20120010910 A1 teaches:
A computer-implemented system for efficiently boarding passengers onto an airplane, the system comprising: a database comprising passenger information including a passenger number, record locator, assigned seat, seat type, priority status,
In par 017: FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a seating system 10 for an airline. Database 120 stores the seating configuration of the aircraft for a flight, seat assignments for the flight, and may include other relevant information such as passenger identification and frequent flyer status. In general, the database may store seat assignments for many or all of the airline's flights during a certain period of time (e.g., all flights in the next 365 days). For each seat on a given flight, the database contains information that either identifies the assigned passenger or reflects that the seat is currently unassigned.
In par 018: “Database 120 is coupled to a processor 130 that may perform a variety of functions, including updating seat assignments that are stored in the database. The processor may also access one or more of the seat assignments so that they may be displayed to a passenger or other end user on display 140. The display may be the screen of a laptop, desktop computer, or smartphone, or other device operated by the user, or a screen built into an airport check-in kiosk. In the former case, information would be communicated between processor 130 and display 140 over the Internet or some other network (not shown). The processor may be coupled to a printer 150 so that an end user may print a boarding pass or other document reflecting his or her seat assignment. The printer may be coupled to the user's laptop or other device.”
In par 020: “Database 120 is coupled to a processor 130 that may perform a variety of functions, including updating seat assignments that are stored in the database. The processor may also access one or more of the seat assignments so that they may be displayed to a passenger or other end user on display 140. The display may be the screen of a laptop, desktop computer, or smartphone, or other device operated by the user, or a screen built into an airport check-in kiosk. In the former case, information would be communicated between processor 130 and display 140 over the Internet or some other network (not shown). The processor may be coupled to a printer 150 so that an end user may print a boarding pass or other document reflecting his or her seat assignment. The printer may be coupled to the user's laptop or other device.”
In Par 024: “Many variations on the above are possible (i.e., many other seat attributes may be designated for selection by the passenger). For example, the passenger may specify other types of seats (e.g., bulkhead seats, exit row seats, seats that recline, seats that have a power outlet, video screen, Internet connection, airphone, etc.). Conversely, the interface could allow a passenger to specify seats that he is not willing to take (e.g., a bulkhead seat, a non-reclining seat, etc.). Indeed, the interface could permit a specification of acceptable and unacceptable seat attributes (e.g., window seat but not a bulkhead). Other ways to specify desired or undesired location (e.g., left or right side of plane, not the center section on a wide body aircraft, or front third/middle third/back third of plane) or seating companion (e.g., using the other passenger's record locator instead of the current seat number) may be used as well.”
See par 033: Record locator.
And par 036: “Then, in step 526, database 120 is updated to reflect seat reassignments and affected passengers are notified of their new seat assignments in step 528.”
But Lele does not teach assigning, by the processor, a final boarding number to each passenger in an identified party, wherein the final boarding number for each passenger in the party is a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party
assigning, by the processor, a group number to each passenger based on the final boarding number, wherein passengers with lower final boarding numbers are assigned lower group numbers.
Kropf, US PGPUB 20210209714 A1 (Kropf) teaches:
assigning, by the processor, a final boarding number to each passenger in an identified party, wherein the final boarding number for each passenger in the party is a lowest original boarding number assigned to any passenger in the party
in par 31: The seating chart 200 may also have a group number column 204. The group number column 204 may represent the group in which each corresponding row has been assigned. In the non-exclusive example of FIG. 2, there are six (6) different groups distributed along the rows. The groups may be assigned sequentially and repeatedly from the front row 1 towards the back row 30 until all of the rows have been assigned a group.
Kropf further teaches
assigning, by the processor, a group number to each passenger based on the final boarding number, wherein passengers with lower final boarding numbers are assigned lower group numbers
in par 034: “Group 1 may further be ordered in a first order prior to boarding the vehicle 102 in the organization area 104. If a vehicle boarding entrance 108 is substantially at the front of the vehicle, the first order may be organized so that the first passengers on the vehicle from group 1 are the passengers on the back most row of the group (i.e. row 30). The first order may further be organized so the next passengers of group 1 are the passengers that occupy the next back most row of group 1 (i.e. row 24). The order of passengers may be organized so that the back most passengers of the group enter the vehicle first thereby ensuring that all passengers access their respective rows prior to stowing baggage and the like.”
But Kropf does not teach generating, by the processor, a boarding pass for each passenger including the group number, final boarding number, seat number, seat type, an indication of whether the seat is on a left or right side of the airplane, an indication of which colored aisle leads to the passenger's assigned seat, and a diagram of the airplane seating with a colored pathway from an entrance of the airplane to the passenger's assigned seat
Simms et al., US PGPUB 20070107277 A1, teaches marking each aisle with assemblies that have multicolored LEDs with options for variable color and intensity, see pars 022-023, but this does not teach that each aisle is illuminated with a different color.
DeLuca US PGPUB 20190392490 A1, teaches in pars 063-064 that a specific lighting color can be used in an aisle to notify a customer of an item they are searching for. However while this arguably teaches in combination with Simms illuminating each aisle of the airplane with a different color, DeLuca does not teach:
generating, by the processor, a boarding pass for each passenger including the group number, final boarding number, seat number, seat type, an indication of whether the seat is on a left or right side of the airplane, an indication of which colored aisle leads to the passenger's assigned seat, and a diagram of the airplane seating with a colored pathway from an entrance of the airplane to the passenger's assigned seat
Wang et al., WO 2024207691 A1, PCT Filing date September 20, 2023, US Designation, teaches on page 6 of the translation that a seat map is displayed to a passenger on a screen. However, this does not teach:
generating, by the processor, a boarding pass for each passenger including the group number, final boarding number, seat number, seat type, an indication of whether the seat is on a left or right side of the airplane, an indication of which colored aisle leads to the passenger's assigned seat, and a diagram of the airplane seating with a colored pathway from an entrance of the airplane to the passenger's assigned seat
Walker US Pat No 6112185 teaches storing, by a processor, in a database, passenger information including a passenger number, Fig 5 credit card number item 575 under a broadest reasonable interpretation a credit card number is a passenger number.
record locator, Fig 5 item 530 reservation number
assigned seat, Fig 5 item 550
seat type, Fig 5 item 560.
priority status, in Fig 5 Items 585 and 590, and col 9 ln 36-46: “Finally, the reservation database 500 preferably records an indication of the status of any upgrade offers associated with each reservation in field 585 and an indication in field 590 of any premium services which the customer has successfully obtained as a result of an accepted offer for an upgraded service, such as a beverage immediately upon boarding, or priority delivery of luggage upon deplaning. It is noted that the reservation number recorded in field 530 can be utilized to access the associated upgrade offers recorded in the upgrade offer database 600.”
Walker does not teach a boarding pass with group number and final boarding number.
Carvalho et al., US Pat No 10860952 B1 teaches and number of passengers in a party associated with each passenger in col 6 ln 8-39: “At the step 130, PNR data for a plurality of passengers is received by the computer 25 or using the computer 25. As shown in the table identified by the numeral 200 in FIG. 7, the PNR data can often include a PNR identifier, such as PNR identifier 200a. Each PNR identifier is associated with: one or more of a party ID, a passenger count, an origination location, a destination location, a PNR date, a departure date, a flight number, and a cabin identifier. For example, the PNR identifier 200a is associated with a party ID 200b, a passenger count 200c, one or more passenger IDs 200d; an origination location 200e; a destination location 200f; a PNR date 200g, a departure date 200h, a flight number 200i, and a cabin identifier 200j. Generally, an itinerary is defined by the origination location and the destination location, and may also include the departure date and the flight number. As the PNR data is generally historical PNR data, each of the data included or associated with the PNR data is historical data. For example, the itinerary is a historical itinerary. Thus, the PNR identifier 200a is associated with the historical itinerary of the origination location 200e, the destination location 200f, on flight number 200i on PNR date 200g. In some embodiments, the PNR data is received by the forecast module 90 and from the reservation system database 70 and/or the inventory history database 60. However, in other embodiments, the PNR data is received by any one of the modules 85, 90, 95, 105, 107, 110, 110, 120, and 115. In some embodiments, the PNR data is received from any one of the other modules 85, 90, 95, 105, 107 110, 110, 120, and 115 and/or the databases 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80. Generally, at least a portion of the PNR data is generated when a reservation is made.” See Figs 7 and 9 pax count teaches passenger count which is the number of passengers in a PNR which is passenger name record, teaching how many passengers for each party.
Carvalho does not teach a boarding pass with group number and final boarding number.
Adam + Cuppy, “Boarding Group 3, Now Boarding” Medium, [online] published May 13, 2019, available at: < https://medium.com/codingzeal/boarding-group-3-now-boarding-82945c42c889 > teaches a boarding group on a boarding pass but does not teach a final boarding number on a boarding pass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619