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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 6-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 14-17, and 19-21 were amended, and claims 2-5 were canceled.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 1, 17, and 20-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 17, and 20-21 have been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected instances of problematic grammar.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims 4-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 4-16 have been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected instances of missing antecedent basis and canceled claim 4 which was deemed indefinite on other grounds.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to rejections of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of all claims have been withdrawn. Applicant has overcome rejections from the first action by amendment of the independent claims with method steps that the previously cited references do not teach separately and cannot teach in combination, and no new and superior reference was found to teach the matter of the independent claims.
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, first, that their invention involves improvements to airport infrastructure systems such as departure control systems, airport control systems, high-level control systems, and baggage-handling systems. They state, “The Office Action's characterization of the claims as merely ‘organizing human activity’ (e.g., booking and transfers) overlooks their focus on technical operations in aviation infrastructure.” However, all these systems are conventional computer systems not created by applicant, and no changes to computer hardware or design are disclosed or claimed. The only change to these systems imposed by applicant’s invention according to exemplar claim 1 is access to their respective databases by applicant’s travel control system. This access is first of all deemed insignificant extra-solution activity, and secondly is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Electronic recordkeeping and storing information in memory have both long been held to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see, for example, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Applicant further argues that considering the claims to involve human organization ignores the technical aspects of computer system interconnection of applicant’s invention, such as receiving electronic booking requests, updating databases, and configuring baggage tags. They state, “This is not abstract ‘commercial organization’ but a specific technical solution for reconfiguring airport systems to bridge unaffiliated airline data silos via API integration and database updates.” However, the technical challenge presented to software developers in the computerization of a method of human organization and in accessing some other vendor’s computer system is neither here nor there if no innovations in software technology are disclosed or claimed. Moreover, no data silos or APIs or other technical aspects of software or computer systems are mentioned in any claim, though indeed their mere mention would not matter because these aspects of software are well known. In the absence of any demonstrable advance in computer technology, neither disclosed nor claimed, the computerization of a human process is not acceptable inventive material. In the days before computers, booking requests for air travel were received and processed by humans, passenger records were created and filed on paper, baggage tags were applied to bags, and baggage was transferred from one flight to another. No aspect of applicant’s method could not have been performed a century ago saving the computerization, electronic recordkeeping, and information storing aspects which have been established to be insignificant extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant further argues that a serious technical problem of interoperability is overcome by their invention. They state, “The claimed steps reconfigure DCS/ACS/BHS to enable automated transfer of baggage between unaffiliated airlines without interline arrangements-preventing manual carousel pickup/check-in at transit airports, routing baggage directly to connecting flights, and reducing MCT.” However, no special computer technology is disclosed in the instant application that overcomes any technical problem whatsoever. In claiming that one system updates another system’s database, no new advance is disclosed. Systems have been known to update other system databases since the invention of computer networking. In the absence of some particular disclosed machine or technical method for performing the update in a novel way, this interconnection or interoperation must also be considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant also argues that even if the claims do recite a judicial exception, they integrate it into a practical application by improving the function of various airport systems by enabling baggage transfer between unaffiliated airlines without interline agreements. However, once again this aspect of applicant’s invention amounts to human organization, because in the absence of computerization, airports on various legs of a journey could perform baggage transfer even between unaffiliated airlines without interline agreements using various baggage tags and human methods. The demonstration of improved process efficiency for a method of human organization through use of a computer does not add significantly more to what is essentially a method of human organization, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), second list of examples of insufficient demonstrations of improvements.
Applicant has amended their independent claims to add two scenarios regarding baggage tags and how they are handled by staff and airport systems. As regards patent eligibility, we do not consider these scenarios to disclose anything more than the previous claims as analyzed in the first action. However, their merits as regards novelty and obviousness have been considered separately; see Allowable Subject Matter, below.
While applicant has argued their case extensively regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the judicial exception and its multi-prong test for eligibility, they have failed either to respond regarding the rejection of claims 20-21, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claiming software per se. Even as amended, claims 20-21 continue to claim a computer program without any conventional attempt to shield the program from rejection by claiming a “non-transitory storage medium” or employing any similar language grounding the software in hardware.
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 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea ( without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more because the additional elements fail to both integrate into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Moreover, all claimed computer-based features fail eligibility steps 2A and 2B in not advancing computer technology, nor do the claimed features advance any other technology or technical field.
The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below. Independent claim 1 is representative of all rejected claims and will be considered as an exemplar for these claims.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry, the method for transfer of baggage between connecting flights of claim 1 is ostensibly directed to an eligible category of subject matter, i.e. a process. Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. In this case, the invention is primarily concerned with “certain methods of organizing human activity”. The method of organization is a series of commercial interactions between a) an air-traveler and a booking portal (as operated by an airline or an OTA), and b) two or more airlines and the airports through which connecting flights depart and arrive. The organization of human activity is the process of facilitating an air-traveler’s journey comprising connecting flights from airlines without cooperation agreements along with the carriage of the traveler’s baggage.
Analysis of the individual limitations of claim 1 follows:
A method for transfer of baggage between connecting flights books a journey and check-in at a departure airport, shifts to a connecting flight at one or more transit airport(s) and completes the journey at a destination airport, and the passenger check-in the baggage before the journey at the departure airport or remotely and collects the baggage after the journey,This limitation describes a routine and age-old commercial procedure in which an air traveler books their flights and transfers between connecting flights along with their baggage.
wherein, the journey comprises transfer of baggage at the one or more transit airport(s) between connecting flights from at least two airlines not having an arrangement for baggage check-through, Again, this limitation describes a method of organizing human activity.
the method comprises: providing a computer-implemented travel control system, the travel control system receiving booking information of a journey from a booking portal, or any other source generating booking information, connected to the computer-implemented travel control system, the travel control system receiving, when the journey is booked, passenger data generated for each connecting flight by the respective airlines, storing the booking information and the passenger data in a database in the travel control system, and the travel control system updating one or more databases for a departure control system and/or airport control systems at the departure airport and/or the one or more transit airport(s) with booking data comprising the passenger data.This limitation is likewise abstract. The claimed “computer-implemented travel control system” and all the other recited systems are evidently software programs running on general purpose computers. No computer hardware is claimed whatsoever, and no software feature is claimed that advances computer technology. We hold the process of updating databases and transferring booking data is essentially a linkage to a technological environment, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Per MPEP 2106.05(a), the invention does not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” nor does it improve “any other technology or technical field.“ In particular, the courts have indicated that the mere automation of manual processes does not constitute an improvement in computer functionality (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), second paragraph iii).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to commonplace aspects of a general-purpose computing device whose only function is to communicate booking and travel plan information. No particular machine is claimed, nor is passenger baggage even mentioned in the key inventive limitation. These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “computer-implemented travel control system” and the other systems of the claim are merely software programs running on a general-purpose computer. These elements have been considered, but add nothing more to an essentially algorithmic process where the algorithm, insofar as it is disclosed at all, is entirely well-understood, routine, and conventional. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the computer-based elements of this limitation have been established by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner, namely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “electronic recordkeeping” (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)). No technical aspect of this claim involves anything more than one or the other of these two types of capability, except, perhaps for the aspect of applicant’s system claimed to update other system databases. This too, however, is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as remote database updates have been known since the invention of computer networking and interoperability has been achieved between heterogeneous systems for an equally long time. In the absence of some particular new technique for performing the claimed interoperation, the generic process of interoperation is likewise considered well-understood, routine, and conventional. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible.
Independent claims 17, 20, and 21 recite limitations of similar scope to claim 1 and are found to be similarly directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Moreover, claims 20 and 21 fail step 1 of the eligibility inquiry because in view of MPEP 2106.03, computer programs (“software per se”) are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, not being in any of the four statutory categories.
Dependent claims 5-16 and 18-19 have been fully considered as well. The dependent claims add no non-abstract inventive material substantially different from the analysis associated with claim 1; rather, they merely elaborate the method of claim 1 with more details, none of which add non-abstract significant elements. There is no indication that the combinations of elements in these claims improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of a human-implementable procedure. We take special note of claims 13-16 which disclose a “relabelling station” at which a traveler’s bags are relabeled in transit. We hold this station and its relabeling activity to be an “insignificant extra-solution activity” per MPEP 2106.05(g) because the process of applying tags to a traveler’s baggage is universal in air travel and thus falls under the “well known solution” heading of paragraph (1) in this section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 17, and 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent claims 1, 17, and 20-21, applicant’s amended claims specifies two bag-tagging scenarios. In the context of applicant’s claimed system, the second scenario, wherein a first baggage tag contains only information regarding a first leg of a journey and wherein at the intermediate transit airport the first baggage tag is replaced with a new tag for the next leg of the journey, was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While some art such as US 2010/0208289 teaches the application of a second baggage tag, this second tag does not replace the first tag at a second transit airport subsequent to a first leg of a journey. Dependent claims 6-16 inherit the potential allowability of claim 1 if rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0208289 is an example of art that teaches the application of a second baggage tag to airline luggage, but not at a transit airport and not for the replacement of the previous tag for a first leg of a journey.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655