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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a 2nd Non-Final in reply to the amendments and remarked filed on 7 July 2025.
Claims 1, 6-8, 12, 17-20 and 23 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 13-16 and 21 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6-12, 17-20 and 22-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112f interpretation and rejections of Claim 1 but are insufficient to overcome the 112 f interpretation and rejections of claims 6-8.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome a 101 rejection, see new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks required an updated search that resulted in the identification of new art that is utilized in a new grounds of rejection under 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7 July 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 101, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Regarding the 103, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “module” configured to…in system claims 6, 7, and 8.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6, 7 and 8 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. Because of the invocation of 112 f above, the modules configured to at least receive, store, send and clear are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure for the module. However, the specification in at least Fig. 1 and on Page 19 line 4-25 and Page 21 lines 1-6 describe only that the system may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment or combine software, firmware, hardware or any other suitable approach. It is unclear what hardware elements are representative of the modules or capable of performing the claimed module functions. Clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7 and 8 include the limitation “module configured to” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure in at least Fig. 1, Page 19 and Page 21 are devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, the structure described in the specification is merely recited at a high level, an entirely hardware embodiment, but does not perform the entire function in the claim, nor does the specification describe any association between the structure and the function.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6-8 recite the limitations “the processor receiving module”, “the processor resource allocation module”. The modules previously introduce din claim 1 were deleted, however the modules in the dependent claims remain in the amended claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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, 6-12, 17-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 12 and 23 recite a method for task management and allocation in an airport including limitations to update a current state of an airport based on different received data, compare the service level to a threshold range and evaluate if the level is within or outside the range, and determine a cleaning event based on other comparative/analytic determinations. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the “processor configured to” language, the claims encompass a user simple making observations and evaluations in their mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor configured to perform steps does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including a processor configured to receive data, a storage device configured to store data, the processor configured to send and clear task alerts and that the configured processor performs the updating, comparing, evaluating and determining steps. The receiving, storing, sending and clearing (i.e. stop sending) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The configured processor that performs the updating, comparing, evaluating and determining steps is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates those steps such that they are performed “by a computer”. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a generic computer environment. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving, storing, sending/clearing steps that were considered insignificant extra solution activity in step 2A, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than generic off the shelf components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the collection, storage, receipt and transmission of data in a computer environment is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 6-11, 17-20 and 22 include all the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the abstract concept by describing the event data, the service levels, additional determinations and comparisons, as well as areas of the airport.
The described additional updating and sending set forth additional elements that are similar to those addressed above and fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention by establishing a meaningful implementation through integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 6-12, 17-20 and 22-23 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 17-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2021/0350689) in view of Davis et al. (US 2021/0027402).
As per Claim 1 Kelly teaches:
A system for automatic task management and allocation in an airport, comprising:
a processor configured to receive event data, wherein the event data comprises staff data, and wherein the staff data further comprises staff location data of a plurality of staff members (Kelly in at least [0097, 0225-0230, 0237, 0311, 0313, 0315, 0345, 0351-0352, 0364-0365] describe capturing and receiving event data including cleaning events performed by staff at particular locations, the location data can be received from Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, rfid, gps or other indoor asset tracking sensors);
a storage device configured to store airport mapping data (Kelly in at least Fig. 13 and 16 shows a top down map of an office space, [0050, 0054, 0129-0135, 0181, 0213-0221, ] describe storing maps of all surfaces, facilities patrons, the facilities are described as including airports in at least [0052]);
wherein the processor is configured to update a current state of the airport based on the received event data, wherein the current state of the airport comprises a service level, and wherein the processor is configured to compare the service level to a threshold range (Kelly in at least [0134-0138] describes the ability to show the current state of cleanliness for an area, evaluating whether the area has or has not yet met the standard or threshold based on appearance or timing based thresholds); and
wherein the processor is configured to send a task alert to one or more of the plurality of staff members if the service level is determined to be outside of the threshold range (Kelly in at least [0134-0138] describes how when the cleanliness does not meet the standard or is outside the threshold indicating as such with color coding alerts, such as a red tint or overlay, a bounding box output, or a percentage based evaluation, that can be relayed to supervising employees or other systems to be displayed remotely, see also at least Figs. 8A, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and [0090-0093, 0099-0100, 0104-0105, 0107]);
wherein the processor is configured to clear the task alert if the service level is subsequently determined to be within the threshold range (Kelly in at least [0134-0138, 0192, 0195] describes that the color coded indicators or alerts would be cleared from red to green when the service level or cleanliness is considered sufficient or larger than a preset threshold amount, see also at least Figs. 8A, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and [0090-0093, 0099-0100, 0104-0105, 0107])
wherein the service level is a cleanliness level of a given area of the airport, wherein the one or more of the plurality of staff members are cleaning staff members (Kelly in at least [0090-0100, 0104-0105, 0107 0134-0138, 0192, 0195, 0225-0230, 0237, 0311, 0313, 0315, 0345, 0351-0352, 0364-0365] describes cleanliness levels for facilities such as airports and staff members are cleaning staff);
wherein the given area of the airport is a gate area having a boundary defined by a polygon in the airport mapping data, wherein the processor is configured to determine a cleaning event when the staff location data of a cleaning staff member is determined to be within a gate area polygon, wherein the cleanliness level is based on the time since the last cleaning event for that gate area, and wherein the threshold range is a time range from zero to a maximum time limit (Kelly in at least Fig. 14-17 and [0050-0052, 0080, 0100-0107] describe denoted areas which are defined regions including waiting areas, e.g. gates areas, areas can be can be triggered as clean when a cleaning attendant is present or not at a particular location, tags loaded on employee badges or loaded onto employee mobile devices can also be used to track how long a cleaning staff member dwells in a designated area, for example if they did not dwell near to the cleaning area for a minimum amount of time the system would not track that a cleaning event occurred, [0129-0135] describes the area based machine vision and how at set up/configuration designated areas that need to be cleaned can be marked as rectangles or polygons within the camera video feed and unique IDs can be assigned to the areas/surfaces/objects, the time since a last cleaning can also be tracked and used as indicators of cleanliness, see also Fig. 18-19 and at least [0182-0186]); and
wherein the processor is configured to determine a cleaning event only when the staff location data of a cleaning staff member is determined to be within a gate area polygon for longer than a minimum time duration (Kelly in at least Fig. 14-17 and [0050-0052, 0080, 0100-0107] describe denoted areas which are defined regions including waiting areas, e.g. gates areas, areas can be can be triggered as clean when a cleaning attendant is present or not at a particular location, tags loaded on employee badges or loaded onto employee mobile devices can also be used to track how long a cleaning staff member dwells in a designated area, for example if they did not dwell near to the cleaning area for a minimum amount of time the system would not track that a cleaning event occurred, [0129-0135] describes the area based machine vision and how at set up/configuration designated areas that need to be cleaned can be marked as rectangles or polygons within the camera video feed and unique IDs can be assigned to the areas/surfaces/objects, the time since a last cleaning can also be tracked and used as indicators of cleanliness, see also Fig. 18-19 and at least [0182-0186]).
Kelly does not explicitly recite event data comprising flight data used to update the airport current state. However, Davis teaches a system for managing staff location data and monitoring airport staff and locations. Davis further teaches:
wherein the event data further comprises flight data and wherein the processor is configured to update the current state of the airport based on the received flight data (Davis in at least [0008-0009, 0011-0012, 0025-0026, 0029, 0031, 0040, 0044-0048] describes utilizing flight data in the determination and monitoring of the current state of the airport facility);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to receive, store and update the state of an airport based on event data and compare cleanliness levels to thresholds to include the techniques for utilizing flight as event data because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did individually. By utilizing flight data as events that occur in the airport, the combination enables the identification of potential high traffic events requiring and triggering efficient communication with staff so that issues or potential issues can be resolved more quickly and effectively.
As per Claim 6 Kelly does not teach but Davis further teaches:
wherein the flight data further comprises flight departure events, and wherein the cleanliness level is configured to be determined and compared to the threshold range in response to the receipt of a flight departure event at the processor receiving module (Davis in at least [0008-0009, 0012, 0025-0026, 0029, 0031, 0040, 0046-0047] describes utilizing flight data in the determination and monitoring of the current state of the airport facility, [0004-0005, 0012, 0022, 0027-0028, 0031-0034, 0039, 0051] describe evaluating the cleaning history and cleanliness of a facility or designated facility zone, [0039, 0043-0047, 0049] describe the system’s ability to define specific zones with dimensional characteristics and utilizing proximity, time based history and other information to evaluate if cleaning should occur).
Davis is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 7 Kelly further teaches:
wherein the processor resource allocation module is configured to send an escalated task alert to a further staff member if a cleaning event is not determined for the gate area within a given time duration of the task alert being sent (Kelly [0068] cleaning even triggers can be configured after a set period of time to let the cleaning team know when to clean specific surfaces, [0081] describes the ability to alert attendants when cleaning needs to occur, see also Fig. 9 and at least [0091] describing how other key metrics can be shown to managers to aid in the cleaning compliance process, [0179] describes the ability to send notifications if surface cleaning is too short, [0189-0191] describes how time limits associated with required cleaning events that are not met can result in a manager being notified)
As per Claim 8 Kelly further teaches in at least [0371] the ability to determine the proximity of an employee to a service or designated area that needs to be cleaned and the ability to detect if an individual is within a predetermined distance of a surface/designated before transmitting a command signal. Kelly also describes sending task alerts to cleaning staff members as is described above.
Kelly does not explicitly recite sending a task alert to cleaning staff within a determined distance or with shortest walking distance. However, Davis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a walking distance to the gate area polygon from the most recently received staff location data for each of the cleaning staff members, and the processor resource allocation module is configured to determine the cleaning staff member determined to have the shortest walking distance to the gate area polygon (Davis in at least [0004-0005, 0012, 0022, 0027-0028, 0031-0034, 0039, 0043-0051] describe the system’s ability to define specific zones with dimensional characteristics and utilizing proximity to evaluate if cleaning should occur and by whom the tasks should be performed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to receive, store and update the state of an airport based on event data and compare cleanliness levels to thresholds which are a basis for notifying staff as to when cleaning events need to occur to include the techniques for utilizing staff proximity to events for assignment decisions because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performs the same function as it did individually. By utilizing staff proximity to cleaning needs, the combination enables the identification of events requiring service and triggering efficient communication with staff so that issues or potential issues can be resolved more quickly and effectively.
As per Claim 9 Kelly does not teach but Davis further teaches:
wherein the event data further comprises a number of passengers determined to be in a given area of the airport, wherein the service level and/or threshold range is dependent upon the number of passengers determined to be in the given area, and wherein the task alert requests the staff member to attend the given area of the airport (Davis in at least [0004, 0006-0007, 0012, 0023-0024, 0031, 0042-0048] describes determining the occupancy level within a certain area and the allowable occupancy and comparing the two to determine whether staffing should be adjusted).
Davis is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 10 Kelly in at least Fig. 14-17 and [0050-0052, 0080, 0100-0107] describe denoted areas which are defined regions including waiting areas, e.g. gates areas, [0129-0135] describes the area based machine vision and how at set up/configuration designated areas that need to be cleaned can be marked as rectangles or polygons within the camera video feed and unique IDs can be assigned to the areas/surfaces/objects, the time since a last cleaning can also be tracked and used as indicators of cleanliness, see also Fig. 18-19 and at least [0182-0186]. Kelly does not explicitly recite but Davis further teaches:
wherein the given area of the airport is one of: a departing passenger security screening area, an arriving passenger immigration area, a health screening area, a terminal area or a concourse area (Davis in at least [0025, 0030, 0043, 0046-0047] describe the airport as including departing passengers, arrival zones, terminals, gates, etc.).
Davis is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 12, 17-20 and 23 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 1 and 6-10 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 6-10 above.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2021/0350689) in view of Davis et al. (US 2021/0027402) further in view of Ambrefe, JR. (US 2014/0070946).
As per Claim 11 Kelly teaches airport facilities and assessing different needs to trigger cleaning event requirements. Davis teaches airports and different needs or characteristics of events within the airport being used for determinations, sending alerts and staff allocations. Neither Kelly nor Davis explicitly recite data relating to trolleys or wheelchairs used to provide services, alerts or staff allocation.
However, Ambrefe teaches systems and methods for security checkpoint conditions information and sharing. Ambrefe further teaches:
wherein the event data further comprises a number of trolleys and/or wheelchairs determined to be in the given area of the airport, wherein the service level is based upon the number of trolleys and/or wheelchairs respectively in the given area of the airport, and wherein the task alert requests the member of staff to relocate the respective trolleys and/or wheelchairs (Ambrefe in at least [0040 and 0118] describes how the system can store and capture information related to special needs including requests for wheelchairs, staff to assist with wheelchairs or other messaging and information relating to the travel plans for a special needs request, [0139] also describes the system ability to track coordinates and issue alerts relating to travel objects).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to modify the event data used to evaluate designated areas, allocate staffing and send alerts to include techniques for taking into account special needs requests including wheelchair use, staffing assistance and sending alerts because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did independently. By considering wheelchair type event data in service level assessments that result in staffing and alerting, the combination enables special requests to be accommodated which will support ADA needs honored by individual airlines and the airport itself.
As per Claim 22, the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 11 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adam et al. (US 2022/0284795) Surveillance System for Automatic Sanitation Verification that determines based on area identification areas that require periodic sanitation and the ability to manage the cleaning staff for a facility accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623