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 .
Priority
The present application is a continuation of United States Provisional Application 17/765,576 having a filing date of March 31, 2022, which is a national stage application of International Application No. PCT/US2021/024149 having a filing date of March 25, 2021, which is based on and claims benefit of United States Provisional Application 63/000,278 having a filing date of March 26, 2020. Applicant’s claim for benefit of priority is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 11 and 19 recite ‘computing, based on a call an application programming interface associated with a government security interface and the security data, a security authorization for the plurality of passengers to bypass a security checkpoint at an aerial facility;’ instead of ‘based on a call to an application programming interface…’. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation as such.
Claim 10 recites ‘the computing device’ but is dependent off of claim 2. This should instead be dependent on claim 9. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation as such.
Claim 18 recites ‘the computing device’ but is dependent off of claim 11. This should instead be dependent on claim 17. This appears to be a typographical error. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation as such.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2-10 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claims 11-18 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claim 19-21 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
accessing security data for a plurality of passengers of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft;
computing, based on … the security data, a security authorization for the plurality of passengers to bypass a security checkpoint at an aerial facility;
computing a first landing location at an aerial facility for the VTOL aircraft, from among a plurality of potential landing locations, wherein the plurality of potential landing locations comprises: (i) the first landing location which is positioned beyond the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, and (ii) a second landing location which is positioned prior to the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, wherein the security checkpoint is associated with a redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers; and
routing the VTOL aircraft to the first landing location at the aerial facility, instead of the second landing location, to bypass the redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers.
The limitation of Claim 11 recites:
A … method, comprising:
accessing security data for a plurality of passengers of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft;
computing, … the security data, a security authorization for the plurality of passengers to bypass a security checkpoint at an aerial facility;
computing a first landing location at an aerial facility for the VTOL aircraft, from among a plurality of potential landing locations, wherein the plurality of potential landing locations comprises: (i) the first landing location which is positioned beyond the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, and (ii) a second landing location which is positioned prior to the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, wherein the security checkpoint is associated with a redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers; and
routing the VTOL aircraft to the first landing location at the aerial facility, instead of the second landing location, to bypass the redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers.
The limitation of Claim 19 recites:
accessing security data for a plurality of passengers of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft;
computing, … and the security data, a security authorization for the plurality of passengers to bypass a security checkpoint at an aerial facility;
computing a first landing location at an aerial facility for the VTOL aircraft, from among a plurality of potential landing locations, wherein the plurality of potential landing locations comprises:
(i)the first landing location which is positioned beyond the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, and
(ii) a second landing location which is positioned prior to the security checkpoint of the aerial facility, wherein the security checkpoint is associated with a redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers; and routing the VTOL aircraft to the first landing location at the aerial facility, instead of the second landing location, to bypass the redundant security procedure for the plurality of passengers.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as determining landing locations based on security authorization/bypass. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2:
A computing system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
a call to an application programming interface associated with a government security interface
Claim 11:
Computer
a call to an application programming interface associated with a government security interface
Claim 19:
One or more tangible, non-transitory computer readable media storing computer- readable instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
a call to an application programming interface associated with a government security interface
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-10, 1-17, and 20-21 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1, 11 and 19, respectively. Therefore, claims 3-10, 1-17, and 20-21 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3:
Application programming interface
Claim 4:
User computing device
Claim 9:
Computing device
Claim 10:
Computing device
Claim 12:
Application programming interface
Claim 13:
Computing device
Claim 17:
Computing device
Claim 18:
Computing device
Claim 21:
Computing device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is:
Sweatte (US20050146417A1)
Block (US20170064551A1)
Aziz (US20180045522A1)
Fisher (US20210150647A1)
Sweatte teaches A method and system for airport or any other building security where passengers or persons entering a building are caused to undergo a positive identification (ID) check by fingerprint scan, retinal or iris scan, face feature scan, or by any other means of positive identification. A photograph can be taken also. This data, plus the positive ID, and any other optional data about the person, can be checked against government or law enforcement data bases for any government or law enforcement interest in the person. The person can be given an electronic card that can have wireless capability where the person can be tracked while inside the building, airport, or the airspace system. The system can be notified when the person enters any area, secure area, or when a person boards a means for transportation like an aircraft. The system can allow law enforcement to apprehend a person with law enforcement interest at a time and place convenient to law enforcement. Sweatte teaches the passenger would be required to submit to a positive identification check. Certain travelers may be able to preregister their identities and biometrics and be able to bypass certain security points or could be able to proceed through special lines for travelers with who have been previously cleared.
However, it does not teach the limtiations of the VTOL, the API, the computing of first and second landing location which are positioned prior and beyond the security checkpoint and routing the VTOL to land to bypass security procedure.
Block teaches an object of the invention to provide travelers with expedited clearance to facilitate processing through transportation facilities, such as airport security checkpoints. Block teaches part of the AA seamless airport and air travel concept. Seamless connotes without bottlenecks. One of the major annoyances of the airport experience is the holdup at security when going from the central terminal to board the flight, so eliminating this delay helps to promote the AA seamless argument. Pre clearance involves AA as an agent for the FAA. AA conducts a sufficient inquiry of those members who elect this aspect of membership to enable AA to provide adequate information to the FAA to conduct a thorough security check, in order to obtain an expeditious security clearances to bypass or breeze through security. However, it does not teach the remaining limitations as described above.
Aziz teaches a sky vehicle may drive to and position itself on top or bottom of the virtual vertical drop location. The sky vehicle may then descend vertically down such a designated “virtual shafts” and land on the rooftop or street parking or other designated landing spot. Similarly, the vehicle may fly vertically up such a vertical pathway from a rooftop parking lot and then join and fly onto the skyway. As an example and not by way of limitation, if a skyway is analogous to a freeway in the physical world, then the analogy in the physical world to a (virtual) sky shaft is a physical car elevator shaft. However, it does not teach the remaining limitations as described above.
Fisher teaches , the aircraft providers provide preset flights routes and times to the charter broker through APIs specific to the aircraft providers. As a result, any changes to flight information (e.g., routes/times) must be transferred over these APIs. This results in a lag time in providing updated information to individuals, which results in a poor user experience. Second, individuals who book a/an aircraft/space/seat on a multi-leg flight are forced to pay for the aircraft/space/seat for the entirety (i.e., all legs) of the flight, leading individuals to pay higher prices as well as inefficiencies in the transport since the space/seat will be unused by the individual for certain leg(s) of the flight; specifically, a “two-leg” round-trip is often actually a “four-leg” trip including the Aircraft Operator's two trips back to “home base”—the purchasing customer will be changed for all legs of the trip if the aircraft does in fact need to fly back to its “home base.” Fisher teaches charter flight information entered by the aircraft provider via user interface 300 may include, among other things and for each charter flight, charter availability information, flight model information, and flight location information. Charter availability information may include, for example, a re-routing radius for a flight, one or more potential departure airports and/or locations for a flight, one or more potential landing airports and/or locations for a flight, available charter dates for a flight, a charter price per hour, and minimum cost per charter trip. The flight location information may include, for example, a current geographic location of an aircraft, a home base of the aircraft, a cost of the charter flight, one or more potential departure locations, one or more potential landing locations, potential re-routing capabilities, and a price associated with each route. Fisher teaches The data may be transmitted via an API of the management server 102. User interface 360 including flight search criteria options including, for example, a one-way option 361, a round trip option 362, a menu option 363 to book charter aircraft, a menu option 364 to book charter spaces, a menu option 365 to book commercial seats, take off location option 366, a landing location option 367, travel dates option (e.g., start date and end date), and a field 369 to enter the number of passengers.
In conclusion, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above references to teach all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights