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 the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE communication filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. 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 a reserved flight is accepted refer to operation plans for a plurality of air-vehicles and extract 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 is for distinguishably displaying a plurality of repositioning flights corresponding to each of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles, 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 locations different from the first departure location;
receive application-for-use information transmitted in response to a user operation for selecting one of a plurality of repositioning flights;
determine, as a selected air-vehicle to be used for the reserved flight, a selected candidate air-vehicle, of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles, that performs the repositioning flight corresponding to the received application-for-use information;
accept use of the repositioning flight to be performed by the selected air-vehicle;
transmit application-accepted-confirmation information to the second user;
register use of the repositioning flight by the second user; and
stop accepting applications to use the repositioning flights at the discounted rate for any of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles other than 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., 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 from a first user and offering discounted reservations on repositioning flights to a second user in order. The discounted rates are offered on repositioning flights in order to monetize repositioning flights needed to execute the flight reservations. This describes a commercial interaction / marketing activity of offering discounts on repositioning flights 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:
a processor, a memory, and a communication unit;
wherein the memory stores a program for controlling the air-vehicle management system and a flight reservation database;
the processor is configured to execute the program 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;
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:
[receive] from the second user terminal [application-for-use information transmitted in response to a user operation for selecting one of a plurality of repositioning flights] displayed on the second user terminal,
[transmit application-accepted-confirmation information] to the second user terminal;
[register use of the repositioning flight by the second user] in the flight reservation database.
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 processor, a memory, and a communication unit; Examiner notes that the processor and memory are generic computing elements that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the communication unit is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more applying the abstract idea using a generic computer capable of transmitting and receiving data to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to wherein the memory stores a program for controlling the air-vehicle management system and a flight reservation database; and [register use of the repositioning flight by the second user] in the flight reservation database; Examiner notes that the memory, program, and database are recited at a high level of generality and merely generically link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or utilize a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., storing data).
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 [used by a second user]; an air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion configured to, 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; [receive] from the second user terminal [application-for-use information transmitted in response to a user operation for selecting one of a plurality of repositioning flights] displayed on the second user terminal, and [transmit application-accepted-confirmation information] to the second user 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.
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 and receiving limitations were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are 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 acceptances) 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. 101
Applicant's arguments, see 5-8, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that:
Applicant contends that under the USPTO's Guidance for examining patent eligibility of claims, claim 1 is not considered to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1. In this regard, the claim as a whole is directed to a specific technological system that coordinates the dispatch and utilization of physical air-vehicles, and not to an abstract scheme of reservation-making (remarks page 6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that the limitations identified in Step 2A, prong 1 describe accepting flight reservations from a first user and offering discounted reservations on repositioning flights to a second user in order. The discounted rates are offered on repositioning flights in order to monetize repositioning flights needed to execute the flight reservations. This describes a commercial interaction / marketing activity of offering discounts on repositioning flights and therefore falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities category of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Second, Applicant argues that:
In particular, the claim recites concrete operations on specific data structures (an "air-vehicle operation database" of registered operation plans and a "flight reservation database"), inter-device communications with distinguishable first and second user terminals, and a real-world coordination outcome involving the physical repositioning of aircraft from disparate parking locations to a departure location by a required time. These limitations are not a mere idea performable in the human mind or with pen and paper. A person cannot, mentally or with paper, (i) maintain a live operation database of multiple air-vehicles' plans, (ii) push distinguishable discount notifications to a remote second user's terminal in response to a first user's reservation, (iii) atomically lock out further applications upon acceptance, and (iv) coordinate physical repositioning flights, all in the time windows required for on-demand air travel. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(/ll)(C) ("a claim does not recite a mental process where the steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind').
Examiner respectfully replies that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection does not allege that the claimed invention recites a mental process and therefore this argument is moot.
Third, Applicant agues that:
Nor is the claim a "fundamental economic practice" of considered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!. 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The claim is not directed to hedging, intermediated settlement, or risk management. It is directed to the technical problem of efficiently utilizing the otherwise wasted repositioning legs (deadhead legs) of on-demand aircraft by matching them, in real time, to a second, distinct user. That problem did not exist before networked on demand aviation and has no pre-Internet, brick-and-mortar analog (remarks page 6).
Examiner respectfully replies that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection does not allege that the claimed invention recites a fundamental economic practice and therefore this argument is moot. Examiner adds that the limitations identified in Step 2A, prong 1 describe accepting flight reservations from a first user and offering discounted reservations on repositioning flights to a second user in order. The discounted rates are offered on repositioning flights in order to monetize repositioning flights needed to execute the flight reservations. This describes a commercial interaction / marketing activity of offering discounts on repositioning flights and therefore falls within the certain methods of organizing human activities category of abstract ideas. Accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Fourth, Applicant argues that:
the claimed air-vehicle management system uses a processor executing a program for controlling the air-vehicle management system and a flight reservation database which is considered to clarify that this is not a general processor. Further, the air-vehicle-for-use arrangement portion, controlled by the program, receives information from a user terminal, determines an aircraft based upon the information received, transmits data to a user terminal, registers the flight information in a database, and stops accepting applications from other candidate air-vehicles. These claim features are considered to emphasize that the claim is tied to particular machines (distinct first and second user terminals, the operation database, the reservation database) and produces a real-world effect, i.e., the dispatch of a specific physical aircraft on a specific repositioning flight to a specific departure location by a specific time. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II). The claimed functions are recited at more than just at a high level of generality and do more than just link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that 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. Examiners adds that transmitting information between generic device and storing data in a database are generic computer functions that merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or, at most, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
Fifth, Applicant argues that:
Furthermore, displaying data, receiving information from a user terminal, determining an aircraft based upon the information received, transmitting data to a user terminal, registering the flight information in a database, and stopping accepting applications from other candidate air-vehicles is considered to go beyond mere general computer operation are also concrete, integrative applications of any alleged abstract idea that allow the claimed system to function in a real-world environment, and not as an abstraction or idea (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that (as noted above), displaying data, receiving data, processing data, storing data in a generic database, and transmitting data between a user terminal are generic computer function, or at most insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., transmitting data between generic devices). Stopping accepting applications from other candidate vehicles merely recites the abstract idea. None of these limitations considered individually or in combination integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Sixth, Applicant argues that:
Further still, it is noted that the claim improves fleet utilization by converting otherwise-unproductive repositioning legs into revenue-producing flights for a second user. This is a technological improvement to the air-vehicle management system itself, analogous to the improvements found eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (remarks page 7).
Examiner respectfully replies that improving fleet utilization by converting otherwise-unproductive repositioning legs into revenue-producing flights for a second user is as at most an improvement to the abstract idea itself, not a technological improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Seventh, Applicant argues that:
It is also noted that the claim recites a specific ordered combination: extracting plural candidate air-vehicles from plural distinct parking locations; transmitting distinguishable discount information for each candidate's repositioning flight to a second user terminal; determining the selected air-vehicle from the second user's response; registering the use in the flight reservation database; and stopping acceptance of applications for the repositioning flights of all non-selected candidate air-vehicles. The lockout limitation ensures fleet-wide consistency, prevents double-booking, and returns non-selected aircraft to the dispatch pool (remarks page 4).
Examiner respectfully replies the lockout limitation is recited at a high level of generality without any disclosure of a technical improvement to implement the “lockout.” Applicant’s claims simply recite the limitation “stop accepting applications to use the repositioning flights at the discounted rate for any of the plurality of candidate air-vehicles other than the selected air-vehicle” which is a limitation that recites the abstract idea.
Finally, Applicant argues that:
Continuing to Step 2B, Applicant also submits that the claim recites elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. To this point, the ordered combination of candidate extraction across plural parking locations, distinguishable discount notification to a second user, acceptance with fleet-wide lockout, and crossdatabase registration is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional arrangement of components. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant further notes that, under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and MPEP § 2106.0?(a)(III), any conclusion that these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional must be supported by factual evidence of record. Since claim 1 recites features that are not taught or suggested by the cited art, Applicant submits the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. As such, these features are considered to constitute significantly more than the alleged abstract idea (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that candidate across plurality parking locations merely refers to retrieving information about vehicle availability from a generic database. Further, distinguishable discount notification to a second user merely describes providing a generic notification on a generic user interface to a second user. Additionally, acceptance of fleet-wide lockout merely refers to the abstract limitation of stopping accepting applications for the use of re-positioning flights after one is booked. Finally, cross-database registration as recited in the claims appears to merely refer to storing and retrieving information (i.e., flight reservations or operation plans for air-vehicles) from generic databases. All of these limitations are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions or describing the abstract idea. The ordered combination does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights