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 A189269IA.
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the communication filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, independent claim 1 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
accept a reservation for an on-demand flight by receiving application-for-reservation information for the on-demand flight, the application-for-reservation information being transmitted from a first user;
when the reserved flight is accepted by the flight reservation acceptance portion, reference operation plans for a plurality of air-vehicles and extracts a plurality of candidate air-vehicles that are available to perform the reserved flight, the reserved flight being to depart from a first departure location at a first departure date and time and to arrive at a first arrival location at a first arrival date and time;
transmit first flight discount information to a second user who is not the first user, the first flight discount information providing a notification that each of repositioning flights for each candidate air-vehicle of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles is available at a discounted rate, the repositioning flights each being from each of current parking locations of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles to the first departure location so as to arrive at the first departure location by the first departure date and time the each of the current parking locations being a plurality of parking;
when application-for-use information [is received] from the second user to apply for use of the repositioning flight to be performed by a selected air-vehicle selected from among the plurality of candidate air-vehicles and accepts the use of the repositioning flight, which flight is performed from the parking location corresponding to the selected air-vehicle to the first departure location, to be performed by the selected air-vehicle,
transmit application-accepted-confirmation information that provides a notification that an application to use the repositioning flight by the selected air-vehicle has been accepted;
record the reserved flight information on the repositioning flight by the second user; and
stop accepting the application to use the repositioning flight at the discounted rate for any of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles except the selected air-vehicle.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., 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). That is, the limitations describe accepting flight reservations and offering discounted reservations on repositioning flights which is a commercial interaction / marketing activity and therefore falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities category of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
processor and a memory. wherein the processor is configured to function as:
a flight reservation acceptance portion [configured to accept a reservation];
[the application-for-reservation information being] transmitted from a first user terminal used by a first user;
store, in the memory, reserved flight information that is information regarding a reserved flight;
a candidate air-vehicle extraction portion configured to [reference] an air-vehicle operation database having registered in the air-vehicle operation database [operation plans];
a flight discount information provision portion configured to transmit [first flight discount information] to a second user terminal [used by a second user];
an air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion configured to when the air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion receives application-for-use information transmitted from the second user terminal [apply for use of the repositioning flight]; and
wherein the processor manages operations of the selected air-vehicle by updating the air-vehicle operation database to record the operational status or flight status of the selected air-vehicle during execution of the booked flight.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
With respect to “a flight reservation acceptance portion [configured to accept a reservation]”; “a candidate air-vehicle extraction portion configured to [reference] an air-vehicle operation database having registered in the air-vehicle operation database [operation plans]”; “a flight discount information provision portion configured to transmit [first flight discount information] to a second user terminal”, and an air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion configured to when the air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion receives application-for-use information transmitted from the second user terminal [apply for use of the repositioning flight], Applicant’s published specification paragraph [0038] recites that “[t]he processor reads and executes the program to function as a flight reservation acceptance portion, a candidate air-vehicle extraction portion, a flight discount information provision portion, and an air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion.” Therefore, examiner interprets each of the recited “portions” as software executed by a generic processer to perform the claimed functions. As such these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea
With respect to [the application-for-reservation information being] transmitted from a first user terminal used by a first user and transmitting discount information to second terminal, Examiner notes that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and that transmitting data between generic devices merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or, at most, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to wherein the processor manages operations of the selected air-vehicle by updating the air-vehicle operation database to record the operational status or flight status of the selected air-vehicle during execution of the booked flight, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality specifying that the claimed operations are managed by a generic processor which updates a generic database. At this level of generality, these this limitation merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the transmitting limitations were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Examiner notes these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (transmitting reservation requests and flight discount information) and that transmitting data over a network is well-understood routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner as evidenced by the decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, a conclusion that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Dependent claims 2-4, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claim 1 without significantly more. Specifically each of the dependent claim merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic processor to perform the claims steps) or merely further describes the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims
1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see 5-6, filed 11/12/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that “[b]y these features, the claimed air-vehicle management system dynamically records and updates operational data, and is consequently not a mere automation or method of organizing human activity. As such, these features added to claim 1 are considered to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” (remarks page 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that recording and updating operational data (e.g., recording the flight status or operational status of vehicles) in a database is in fact the automation of a method of organizing human activity. At most, updating records and operational data in a database merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Second, Applicant argues that “real-time updating of the air-vehicle operation database (updating the database with the latest data during the flight, including making reservation and forwarding decisions) is considered to be specific processing that goes beyond mere general computer operation. As such, these features are considered to constitute significantly more than the alleged abstract idea” (remarks page 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that simply recording reservation and forwarding decisions in a generic database does not go beyond general computer operation as it merely amounts to transmitting, receiving, and storing data with a generic processor and memory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 20220058532 (“Ota”) discloses offering private flights at a discounted fee based on the scheduled departure and takeoff times and landing sites of other flights to optimizing plane itinerary planning
US Patent Application Publication Number 20230230181 (“Collins”) discloses providing discounts on flights to avoid dead leg repositions of flights
US Patent Application Publication Number 20140129080 (“Leibowitz”) discloses a display to indicate whether a user would have sufficient power to arrive at a selected location without requiring a refueling or recharging
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210279651 (“Petrossov”) discloses push notifications that notify clients of shared charter segment opportunities
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve
hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable
over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622