DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 29, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification [0019] line 8, the phrase “as the as the granularity” should be --as the granularity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period;
Claim 1 line 7, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period;
Claim 11 line 6, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period;
Claim 11 line 8, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period;
Claim 20 line 7, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period;
Claim 20 line 9, the phrase should be end with a semicolon instead of a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-20.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“identifying an input data set…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information which is categorized as a Mental Process according to See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III)
Yes, because Claims 11 and 20 repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“generating initial resource usage prediction…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.);
“generating, one or more refined resource usage predictions…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.); and
“initiating performance of one or more prediction-based actions…” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.)
No, because Claims 11 and 20 repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer hardware and/or functions, for example, collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, for example, at least one processor; at least one memory; and a non-transitory computer storage medium. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koennen et al. (US 2025/0250023 A1) discloses aircraft air speed management.
Hernandez et a. (US 12,626,604 B2) discloses real time aircraft flight delay prediction.
Yanovsky (US 2018/0374017 A1) discloses real time scheduling for transportations.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 August 4, 2026
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
Prosecution Insights