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 .
Response to Arguments
All rejections have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s cancelled claims. A new rejection below has been entered in light of the Applicant’s newly presented claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 and 38 are dependent on claim 27 despite both claim 37 and 28 reciting the same limitations with a different statutory category. The examiner will assume this is an error and treat claim 37 as being dependent under claim 36 instead. If the Applicant believes this was intentional, they are encouraged to explain so.
Similar to claim 37, claim 38 is dependent on claim 21 despite sharing the same limitations with claim 29 and with a different statutory category. The examiner will assume this is an error and treat claim 38 as being dependent under claim 30 instead. If the Applicant believes this was intentional, they are encouraged to explain so.
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 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites:
“receiving, at a computing system in association with a check-in process, a passenger identifier corresponding to a passenger to be transported to a destination” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“receiving, at the computing system, from a check-in sensor in association with the check-in process, image data depicting a piece of baggage associated with the passenger” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“generating, based on the image data, a virtual baggage identity corresponding to the piece of baggage” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining if their baggage is a certain color or brand.
“storing the virtual baggage identity in association with the passenger identifier” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
“determining that the piece of baggage is present at the destination by comparing further image data captured by a check-out sensor at the destination with the virtual baggage identity” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining their baggage is present in the check-out station by comparing it with the baggage they have in mind.
“receiving, via a baggage pick-up sensor of a baggage pick-up unit at the destination, the passenger identifier” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“in response to receiving the passenger identifier at the baggage pick-up unit, sending a signal to a baggage delivery unit at the destination to deliver the piece of baggage to the baggage pick-up unit” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer with the aid of a pencil and paper, signaling instructions to deliver a baggage.
Claim 22 recites “receiving, at the computing system, (i) an X-ray scan of the piece of baggage, and (ii) a weight of the piece of baggage; and generating the virtual baggage identifier based on the image data, the X-ray scan, and the weight”. Receiving an x-ray scan and weight of the baggage are additional elements of data gathering and generating a virtual baggage identifier is an additional element of data outputting.
Claim 23 recites “determining, at the computing system from the image data, at least one dimension of the piece of baggage”. A person can mentally determine the dimensions of a baggage such as the approximate height or width.
Claim 24 recites “determining an arrangement of the piece of baggage in a transport container based on the at least one dimension”. A person with the aid of a pencil and paper can mentally determine arrangements of baggage based on their dimensions.
Claim 25 recites “determining a loaded position of the piece of baggage in a vehicle based on the weight”. A person with the aid of a pencil and paper can mentally determine positions of a baggage based on their respective weights and how to arrange them on carriers.
Claim 26 recites “wherein at least one of the check-in sensor and the check- out sensor include an augmented reality device”. The augmented reality device is recited at a high level of generality such that it doesn’t impose any meaningful limitation on the invention.
Claim 27 recites “receiving, from a portable augmented reality device associated with a ground handler, an image of the piece of baggage; matching the image to the virtual baggage identity; and transmitting, from the computing system to the portable augmented reality device, information associated with the piece of baggage, for display at the portable augmented reality device”. A person can mentally match image to a virtual baggage identity they have in mind, receiving an image of the piece of baggage is an additional element of data gathering, and transmitting the information for display is a form of data outputting. The ported augmented reality device is recited at a high level of generality such that it doesn’t impose any meaningful limitation on the invention.
Claim 28 recites “wherein information associated with the piece of baggage comprises at least one of: the destination; the passenger identifier; a type of the piece of baggage; an indication of a transport container in which to place the piece of baggage; an orientation of the piece of baggage within the transport container; a seat number corresponding to the passenger; or dimensions of the piece of baggage”. A person can mentally identify their destination, their passenger ID, what type of baggage they have, what transport container their baggage is being placed in, an orientation of their baggage in the container, their seat number, and the dimensions of their baggage.
Claim 29 recites “receiving, at the computing system from a device associated with a ground handler, a status indicator associated with the piece of baggage; and transmitting a notification for delivery to the passenger, the notification containing the status indicator”. Receiving a status indicator associated with the baggage and transmitting a notification containing the status to a passenger are additional elements of data outputting.
Claims 30-38 correspond to claims 21-29 respectively, additionally reciting a computing system, communications interface, and a processor. These parts are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons of being directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Claim 39 corresponds to claim 21, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium executable by a processor. These parts are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons of being directed to an abstract idea without being 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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28, 30-35, 37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (EP 3270342 A1) in view of Hovis (US 20180341822 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ross discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computing system in association with a check-in process, a passenger identifier corresponding to a passenger to be transported to a destination (Ross, paragraph [0088], "At the check-in station, a passenger record is accessed according to current procedures, and additional information may be associated with it. Some of that information, such as images and digital fingerprints of the passenger's face, relates to the passenger, while other information relates to the passenger's bag(s)"),
receiving, at the computing system, from a check-in sensor in association with the check-in process, image data depicting a piece of baggage associated with the passenger (Ross, paragraph [0029], "The process, in one embodiment, includes acquiring a digital image data of the object, at block 102, as described above"),
generating, based on the image data, a virtual baggage identity corresponding to the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0029], "Next, features are extracted, at block 104, from the digital image data. As above, specific features or regions of interest (authentication regions) may be selected in anticipation of subsequent identification or authentication attempts of an object. The extracted features are analyzed and feature vectors are extracted to form a digital fingerprint, indicated at block 106"),
storing the virtual baggage identity in association with the passenger identifier (Ross, paragraph [0076], "A sample bag database record 712, to be stored by the server 704 in database 710 may include, without limitation, elements or fields that comprise or encode one or more of the following: Unique ID, digital fingerprints (points of interest or areas of interest, feature vectors)").
While Ross teaches identifying if a baggage is present at the destination (Ross, paragraph [0107], “When the plane carrying the bag arrives at the destination airport, the bag is offloaded from the airplane. It is identified as having arrived and other information concerning its arrival entered into the tracking database”), they do not teach this “by comparing further image data captured by a check-out sensor at the destination with the virtual baggage identity”.
However, Horvis teaches by comparing further image data captured by a check-out sensor at the destination with the virtual baggage identity (Hovis, paragraph [0007], "The step of comparing each of the detected plurality of objects with reference objects, includes comparing the captured image with reference images of the objects.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to compare Ross’s baggage data with reference baggage data, as taught by Hovis.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure baggage is identified correctly and corresponds to the correct passenger.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Ross in view of Hovis discloses receiving, via a baggage pick-up sensor of a baggage pick-up unit at the destination, the passenger identifier (Ross, paragraph [0107], Fig. 7 below, " It is identified as having arrived and other information concerning its arrival entered into the tracking database"),
PNG
media_image1.png
224
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in response to receiving the passenger identifier at the baggage pick-up unit, sending a signal to a baggage delivery unit at the destination to deliver the piece of baggage to the baggage pick-up unit (Ross, paragraph [0107], "The bag may, if desired, be routed to a bin that shows the name of the passenger to whom it is assigned (akin to the manner used in rental car pickups).").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ross in view of Hovis to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving, at the computing system, (i) an X-ray scan of the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0016], " Thus a "scan" may refer to an image (or digital data that defines an image) captured by a scanner, a camera, a specially adapted sensor or sensor array (such as a CCD array), a microscope, a smartphone camera, a video camera, an x-ray machine, a sonar, an ultrasound machine, a microphone (or other instruments for converting sound waves into electrical energy variations), etc"), and (ii) a weight of the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0077], "By way of the server 702, the weight of the bag may be input to the corresponding bag record in the database 710"),
and generating the virtual baggage identifier based on the image data, the X-ray scan, and the weight (Ross, paragraph [0076], "A sample bag database record 712, to be stored by the server 704 in database 710 may include, without limitation, elements or fields that comprise or encode one or more of the following: Unique ID, digital fingerprints (points of interest or areas of interest, feature vectors), Timestamps, locations, actions (e.g. lost tag replaced), Weight, Optical image, other image-based characteristics"*).
*Optical images are taken from scanners, as shown in (Ross, paragraph [0091], "Optical image of bag, along with image-based characteristics like color profiles also added for possible later use (e.g. in identifying the bag if it is lost). Scanners may be used at the check-in station for imaging.").
Regarding claim 23, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: determining, at the computing system from the image data, at least one dimension of the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0092], "Bag is dimensioned (height, width, and length), which again may be done using scanners.").
Regarding claim 24, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 23, further comprising: determining an arrangement of the piece of baggage in a transport container based on the at least one dimension (Ross, paragraph [0083], "The dimensions may be useful for identifying a bag manually, and for optimizing use of cargo space on board a plane, vehicle or other conveyance").
Regarding claim 25, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: determining a loaded position of the piece of baggage in a vehicle based on the weight (Ross, paragraph [0079], "Weight and balance information may be used for loading an aircraft, and for determining available (unused) cargo volume, as noted further below with regard to FIG. 9 .").
Regarding claim 26, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the check-in sensor and the check- out sensor include an augmented reality device (Ross, paragraph [0016], "Broadly, any device that can sense and capture either electromagnetic radiation or mechanical wave that has traveled through an object or reflected off an object or any other means to capture surface or internal structure of an object is a candidate to create a "scan" of an object").
*As evident from the Wikipedia article below, Augmented reality contain measured information such as electromagnetic radiation (which is a form of radio waves), thus making Ross’s scanners an augmented reality device.
PNG
media_image2.png
238
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 27, wherein information associated with the piece of baggage comprises at least one of: the destination;
the passenger identifier;
a type of the piece of baggage;
an indication of a transport container in which to place the piece of baggage;
an orientation of the piece of baggage within the transport container;
a seat number corresponding to the passenger;
or dimensions of the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0079], "A weight and balance system 728 or airport tracking system 730 may be coupled to the server via link 732 to acquire weights and dimensions of the bags associated in the database 710 with a particular flight").
Claims 30-35, 37 corresponds to claims 21-26, 28 respectively, additionally reciting a computing system (Ross, paragraph [0039], “Here, various computing devices or terminals 402 may have access over a network, for example, the internet 404, to cloud computing facilities or services such as a cloud server or other datastore 406”),
a communications interface (Ross, paragraph [0040], “A mobile user device 410 such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop computer, or dedicated device may be configured for communications with the server 412 to request and receive a reply or authentication report for an object of interest.”),
and a processor (Ross, paragraph [0111], “Most of the equipment discussed above comprises hardware and associated software. For example, the typical portable device is likely to include one or more processors and software executable on those processors to carry out the operations described”). Thus, claims 30-35, 37 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claims 21-26, 28 respectively.
Claim 39 corresponds to claim 21, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by a processor (Ross, paragraph [0115], “Embodiments of the invention may include a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions executable by one or more processors, the instructions comprising instructions to perform the elements of the embodiments as described herein”). Thus, claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 21.
Claim(s) 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (EP 3270342 A1) in view of Hovis (US 20180341822 A1) and Morgan (US 20220398300 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 21.
Ross in view of Hovis does not teach “receiving, from a portable augmented reality device associated with a ground handler, an image of the piece of baggage”.
However, Morgan teaches receiving, from a portable augmented reality device associated with a ground handler, an image of the piece of baggage (Morgan, paragraph [0025], "The operator device 21 also includes an augmented or mixed reality user interface 27 for the passenger to provide input defining a location 29 on the surface of the detected object as output on a display 31, for example using inputs from one or more position and/or movement sensors (not shown) of the operating device 21").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to implement an augmented reality device into Ross’s (in view of Hovis) invention and displaying it, as taught by Morgan.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide useful computer-implemented features without completely obstructing the view of everyday life for users.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Ross in view of Hovis and Morgan does not teach “matching the image to the virtual baggage identity”.
However, Hovis additionally teaches matching the image to the virtual baggage identity (Hovis, paragraph [0007], "The step of comparing each of the detected plurality of objects with reference objects, includes comparing the captured image with reference images of the objects.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to match Ross’s (in view of Hovis and Morgan) image with a reference image, as additionally taught by Hovis.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the baggage in the check-out corresponds to the baggage in the check-in.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Ross in view of Hovis and Morgan discloses and transmitting, from the computing system to the portable augmented reality device, information associated with the piece of baggage, for display at the portable augmented reality device (Morgan, paragraph [0038], "The virtual tag augmentation module 53 outputs the augmented image data 55 to the display 31, via the augmented/mixed reality user interface 27").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ross in further view of Hovis and Morgan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 27.
Claim 36 corresponds to claim 27, additionally reciting the computing system (Ross, paragraph [0039], “Here, various computing devices or terminals 402 may have access over a network, for example, the internet 404, to cloud computing facilities or services such as a cloud server or other datastore 406”),
and a processor (Ross, paragraph [0111], “Most of the equipment discussed above comprises hardware and associated software. For example, the typical portable device is likely to include one or more processors and software executable on those processors to carry out the operations described”). Thus, claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 27.
Claim(s) 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (EP 3270342 A1) in view of Hovis (US 20180341822 A1) and in further view of Package Tracking on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzavoC_3hLA).
Regarding claim 29, Ross in view of Hovis discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: receiving, at the computing system from a device associated with a ground handler, a status indicator associated with the piece of baggage (Ross, paragraph [0044], "If that comparison indicates a departure from the expected or authorized route, decision 520, the result may be reported to a user, block 522").
Ross in view of Hovis does not teach “and transmitting a notification for delivery to the passenger, the notification containing the status indicator”.
However, Package Tracking on Youtube teaches and transmitting a notification for delivery to the passenger, the notification containing the status indicator (Package Tracking, 1:26, Screenshot below).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
1126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to email Ross’s (in view of Hovis) passenger about the transportation progress, as taught by Package Tracking.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to notify passengers of their baggage progress.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ross in view of Hovis and in further view of Package Tracking to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Claim 38 corresponds to claim 29, additionally reciting the computing system (Ross, paragraph [0039], “Here, various computing devices or terminals 402 may have access over a network, for example, the internet 404, to cloud computing facilities or services such as a cloud server or other datastore 406”),
and a processor (Ross, paragraph [0111], “Most of the equipment discussed above comprises hardware and associated software. For example, the typical portable device is likely to include one or more processors and software executable on those processors to carry out the operations described”). Thus, claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 29.
Conclusion
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 WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672