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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-28 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, 16-18, 20, 22, and 25 were amended were amended in the reply filed December 1, 2025. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-28 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objection made to the Specification have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While Applicant argues that the claims have support under § 112(a) (Remarks, 16, citing MPEP 2163.02), this was not the basis of the objection. The identified claim terms cannot be found in the disclosure. "New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims." MPEP 608.01(o) (emphasis added).
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under § 112(b) and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. However, the arguments merely restate the sub-groups of certain methods of organizing human activities and conclude that the invention does not fall within any of them (see Remarks, 18). The invention recites a process for confirming delivering of baggage to people from airports to their hotels and outputting a cost. "[B]usiness practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods have existed at least for several decades, if not longer." Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc., 2015 WL 6747142, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (finding claims directed to "booking and tracing container shipments through a third party is an abstraction" because the use of a third party intermediary and shipping of goods are established and "conventional business practice[s]"); Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405, 415 (D.N.J. 2015) (finding the "process of monitoring and moving shipping containers and collecting the relevant data as to the location of the shipping containers" is "an abstraction").
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "For example, the claims recite controlling to send a signal to control a printer to print a slip comprising destination information at the hotel, wherein the destination information indicates a destination at the hotel for the baggage. The claims also recite reading the destination information from the slip with a scanner to display the destination at the hotel for the baggage. The claims further recite changing a delivery flag associated with the accommodation information stored in a database based on completion information indicating that delivery of the baggage is completed. This allows the total cost for both the delivery of the baggage and the costs incurred at the time of check-out to be output." Remarks, 19. Here Applicant describes performing the abstract idea with generic and ubiquitous hardware (i.e., a computer, printer, and scanner). "Like Example 46 of the 2019 PEG Guidelines, controlling a printer to print the slip comprising the destination information at the hotel enables the information to be used route the baggage to its destination at the hotel when it arrives at the hotel and for the delivery flag to be changed which is used for displaying the total cost. This is similar to controlling the feed dispenser in Example 46 to deliver the therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with the feed." Remarks, 19-20. Applicant does not explain how these disparate concepts are similar in any way whatsoever. Usage of a generic printer to print abstract data was not sufficient to confer eligibility in Amaranth (see below). The delivery flag is merely performing a high-level business record-keeping function in a generic database. Outputting a cost is a commercial activity. When viewed in combination, these amount to nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The rejection is maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the detailed description lacks antecedent basis for the claim terms "scanner," "expense[s]" and "purchase[d]."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, each of the independent claims recites "output[ting] a signal to display the destination at the hotel for the baggage in response to reading the destination information from the slip by a scanner." The Specification provides that "when the delivery slip on the baggage is read, a guest name and a room number corresponding to the customer are displayed (step S18). A staff of the hotel hands over the baggage to the customer on the basis of the displayed information corresponding to the customer (step S19)." Published Application, ¶ 0049. Although this supports that the slip is read, it does not specifically support being read by a scanner. Additionally, while Fig. 3 shows a device associated with the step, it is not sufficiently clear from the drawing itself and the disclosure that this unidentified device is specifically a "scanner." The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-28, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims including:
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10:
to obtain, at an airport, hotel information about a reservation at a hotel for a customer based on a customer information, which is information about the customer who uses the airport and obtained from the customer at the airport;
to control an output, at the airport, of an instruction to perform a procedure for delivering baggage of the customer from the airport to the hotel based on the hotel information;
to give, at the hotel, a completion information indicating that a delivery of the baggage is completed, when the delivery of the baggage to the hotel is completed;
to change a delivery flag associated with accommodation information stored based on the completion information, wherein the delivery flag indicates a status of the delivery of the baggage;
to output the status of the delivery of the baggage based on the delivery flag;
to display the destination at the hotel for the baggage in response to reading the destination information from the slip; and
to control an output, at the hotel, of a total cost of a first cost of the delivery and a second cost incurred at a time of check-out of the customer from the hotel which is after the delivery of the baggage is completed,
wherein the hotel is physically separated from the airport.
With respect to claims 11, 16, and 17:
to identify a customer based on an authentication information obtained from the customer who uses an airport and obtained from the customer at the airport, and to obtain, at the airport and in response to identifying the customer, hotel information about a hotel reserved for the customer registered in advance;
to give an instruction to deliver baggage of the customer from the airport to the hotel based on the basis of the hotel information;
to notify the customer that a delivery of the baggage is completed, when the delivery of the baggage is completed;
to change a delivery flag associated with accommodation information stored based on the completion information, wherein the delivery flag indicates a status of the delivery of the baggage;
to output the status of the delivery of the baggage based on the delivery flag;
to display the destination at the hotel for the baggage in response to reading the destination information from the slip; and
to control an output, at the hotel, of a total cost of a first cost of the delivery and a second cost incurred at a time of check-out of the customer from the hotel which is after the delivery of the baggage is completed,
wherein the hotel is physically separated from the airport.
With respect to claims 18, 20, and 22:
to identify a customer based on an authentication information obtained from the customer who uses an airport and obtained from the customer at the airport, and to obtain hotel information about a reservation at a hotel for the customer registered in advance in response to the identified customer;
to output, at the airport, a delivery slip instructing a delivery of baggage of the customer from the airport to the hotel based on the basis of the hotel information;
to notify the customer that the delivery of the baggage is completed, when the delivery of the baggage is completed;
to change a delivery flag associated with accommodation information stored based on the completion information, wherein the delivery flag indicates a status of the delivery of the baggage;
to output the status of the delivery of the baggage based on the delivery flag;
to display the destination at the hotel for the baggage in response to reading the destination information from the slip by a scanner; and
to control an output, at the hotel, of a total cost of a first cost of the delivery and a second cost incurred at a time of check-out of the customer from the hotel which is after the delivery of the baggage is completed,
wherein the hotel is physically separated from the airport.
These limitations taken together qualify as a method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for coordinating and tracking the delivery of baggage to traveling people via a service provider and determining a cost (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, following rules or instructions).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020)—business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their baggage; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a baggage delivery, then displaying the results; Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde, 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—communicating information about a mail object using a personalized marking, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as communicating information about a delivery object using accommodations and customer information; Smart Sys. Innovations v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., mass transit) and data collection related to such transactions, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., hotel baggage delivery) and data collection related to such transactions).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (system, memory configured to store instructions, server, processor configured to execute the instructions, input apparatus, output apparatus, sending a signal via a data bus to control a printer to print a slip, database, outputting a signal to a display, scanner—all recited at a high level of generality).
In addition to being a generic computer function, sending a signal via a data bus to control a printer to print a slip can also be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to the printing of menus after they have been generated in Apple v. Ameranth (842 F.3d at 1241-42). See also MPEP 2106.05(g). This includes the limitation of the contents of the printed slip "comprising destination information at the hotel, wherein the destination information indicates a destination at the hotel for the baggage," which is purely abstract data similar to the menus in Amaranth.
Although the claims have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). Additionally, although the claims take place at a hotel and airport, this merely sets forth a field-of-use for the invention.
The claims do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (system, memory configured to store instructions, server, processor configured to execute the instructions, input apparatus, output apparatus, sending a signal via a data bus to control a printer to print a slip, database, outputting a signal to a display, scanner—see published Specification ¶¶ 0025, 31, 37, 39-40, 44-46 (as amended), 49, & Fig. 3 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Additionally, although the claims take place at a hotel and airport, this merely sets forth a field-of-use for the invention.
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same generic technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Claim 24 adds a generic "baggage delivery management system" absent any technical details, which is not sufficient for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same generic technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Claim 24 adds a generic "baggage delivery management system" absent any technical details, which is not sufficient for the same reasons as in Step 2A (i.e., it merely provides a general link to a particular technological environment with which to perform the abstract idea). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628