DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 2-21 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 2, 7, and 16 were amended. Claims 2-21 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, this application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/058,156, filed on November 24, 2020, which is a national stage application, filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Patent Application No. PCT/ EP2019/063246, filed on May 22, 2019, which claims the benefit of and priority of Great Britain Application No. GB 1808633.0, filed May 25, 2018.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application GB 1808633.0, filed in Great Britain on May 25, 2018. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks that “Applicant prefers to leave matters of claim interpretation for a later court. Accordingly, although Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s careful reading of the claims and his suggested interpretation of the claims, Applicant does not concede or abide by the specific claim interpretations espoused by the Examiner in the Office Action” (pg. 6, remarks filed 12/12/2025).
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 103 rejections of claims 2-21 (pgs. 6-8, 12/12/2025 remarks) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection and citations to the prior art applied in the current § 103 rejections below, in response to applicant’s amendments.
However, the examiner notes that claim 16 has not been amended in a similar manner to claims 2 and 7 and therefore applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-21 rely upon subject matter which is not present in the claims. The examiner has applied new grounds of rejection under § 103 to claims 16-21 below, in response to the amendments.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 2-21.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a verification module configured to perform a verification check…” of claims 2 and 7
“an availability engine configured to determine a delivery service provider availability” of claim 14, and
“determining a delivery service provider availability with an availability engine…” of claim 17
Though the specification does not appear to explicitly recite “a verification module” itself, the functions associated with this “a verification module…” appears to be described in the specification (as filed 8/13/2024) as functions performed by the bag delivery service in ¶ 0074 and ¶ 0116. Also see Fig. 2 and ¶ 0052-0053 describing that the bag delivery service may include computer-based systems. Further, the availability engine and the associated functions are described in ¶ 0058-0059.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the first destination is located in a departure country and the collection point is located in a departure airport” – however, given that independent claim 2 specifies “a collection point at the destination airport,” it is unclear how the same collection point could be simultaneously located in a departure airport and a destination airport, rendering claim 6 indefinite because 1) it is unclear whether claim 6 requires the collection point to be in a departure airport or was instead intended to be located in the destination airport as previously recited, and 2) it is further unclear whether or not claim 6 is intended to refer to a different collection point altogether.
For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets claim 6 to require any collection point in a departure airport or a destination airport.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100318214 A1 to Quackenbush et al. (Quackenbush) in view of US 20040148179 A1 to Kumhyr et al. (Kumhyr), and further in view of WO 2018115853 A1 to Darby et al. (Darby).
Claim 2: Quackenbush teaches:
A bag delivery service (Quackenbush: ¶ 0040, Fig. 3 baggage delivery service system) comprising:
a processor (Quackenbush: Fig. 3, ¶ 0040 showing computer server in connection with baggage direct web site accessed over the internet by customer computer/wireless device) configured to receive information associated with a bag and a customer request to re-route the bag (Quackenbush: Fig. 4 and ¶ 0042-0044 showing traveler desires to arrange baggage delivery to final destination 408, and traveler provides baggage information and confirms baggage delivery; ¶ 0039 “Passenger 208 need not pick up baggage 202 at a baggage carousel because the baggage is delivered directly to the passenger's designated destination location 216 (e.g., hotel, residence, etc.)”),
the customer request including a final destination (Quackenbush: Fig. 6B, ¶ 0044 showing Baggage information filled out by the customer, with delivery location address, i.e. final destination, filled out in the request);
a verification module configured to perform a verification check based on the customer request (Quackenbush: ¶ 0040 “After making baggage transportation arrangements, users can check the status of their baggage (e.g., delivered or not delivered) by accessing Web site 310 via conventional computer 302”; also see ¶ 0052 “After appropriate identity authentication (e.g., entry and confirmation of a user password), baggage delivery status 804 (e.g., delivered, delayed, etc.) is displayed to the user”),
With respect to the limitation:
and further configured to receive a service availability notification associated with a destination airport to thereby determine a bag delivery service availability at the destination airport;
Quackenbush teaches a user requesting bag delivery services from a destination airport to their final destination in conjunction with booking a flight from an origin airport to destination airport (Quackenbush: ¶ 0044-0048), wherein the user booking includes input of the destination airport (collection point) and the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0044, Fig. 6B destination airport MYR and delivery location “Radisson hotel, 125 ocean dr…”) and further teaches that the user receives a confirmation number associated with booking the particular baggage delivery service reservation (Quackenbush: ¶ 0030 “Typically, a confirmation number or other baggage identifier is provided to the baggage owner when baggage delivery is initially booked (e.g., via telephone or the baggage delivery Web site 310 in FIG. 3) to allow for real-time tracking of baggage”), i.e. delivery service is confirmed from the destination airport to the final destination via the baggage delivery service – but Quackenbush teaches a customer device receiving the confirmation, rather than a computer/device of the service system and therefore does not explicitly teach a verification module receiving a service availability notification associated with a destination airport to determine a service availability.
However, Kumhyr teaches a system that requests service availability information from service providers at a destination airport, and receives responses amounting to a notification of available services associated with a destination airport that determines service availability (Kumhyr: ¶ 0057-0058, Fig. 7 showing requesting service availability and receiving responses; ¶ 0022-0028 showing the services are services that services operators offer at a destination airport such as ground transportation upon arrival).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of service availability at a destination airport of Kumhyr in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Many times there may be a plurality of FBOs that provide a similar service at an airport. The present way of obtaining services makes it difficult for a pilot to negotiate the best deal amongst the plurality of FBOs offering similar services since it requires that the pilot personally contact each FBO and negotiate to obtain a best deal for the desired services. There is currently no mechanism available for the automatic identification of FBOs and negotiation of the sale of services” (Kumhyr: ¶ 0006). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the following limitation:
and based on the bag delivery service availability, the processor is further configured to:
i) send a bag routing request to a baggage sortation system such that the bag is re-routed from a first destination at the destination airport to a collection point at the destination airport, and
Quackenbush teaches booking and confirmation of the baggage delivery service, including delivery from the destination airport to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0030, ¶ 0042-0044) and further teaches that the baggage arrives at the destination airport and is processed through baggage handling for pickup by a delivery service (Quackenbush: Fig. 2/¶ 0039 and Fig. 4, ¶ 0048 step 418) – but Quackenbush/Kumhyr do not explicitly teach requesting a baggage sortation system to re-route the bag from a first destination at the destination airport to a collection point in the destination airport.
However, Darby teaches an automated system for identifying baggage that has been booked/cleared for onward delivery and which is automatically routed for onward delivery (i.e. sending a bag routing request/instruction) such that the baggage bypasses a carousel and is delivered to a local delivery partner point, wherein the routing of the baggage may be performed automatically as part of the baggage handling in the arrival airport (Darby: ¶ 0052-0053, Figs. 9 and 10, steps 8.10-8.11, with ¶ 0070-0072 clarifying the functions described in Fig. 9, for example, may be implemented by computer systems such as computer system 200; see Figs. 9-10, see details in drawing sheets 16-17, 19-20, and ¶ 0008, ¶ 0053 re-routed to bypass a baggage carousel and diverted/re-routed to a local delivery partner for delivery to a final destination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the automated bag routing instruction to route the baggage to bypass the carousel to a local delivery partner of Darby in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable the automated and secure routing of baggage items received at the transfer or destination airport, without requiring the passenger to collect the baggage item at the destination or transfer airport” (Darby: ¶ 0008) and that “the user's baggage is delivered directly from an arriving flight to the user's specified destination without requiring the user to collect the baggage at the arrival airport” (Darby: ¶ 0009).
Note: While a previous office action relied upon a different reference to teach the bag routing request, upon further consideration, it is clear that the automated baggage systems of Darby instruct a baggage handling/routing system to route the bags to a collection point.
Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
ii) send a delivery request including the collection point at the destination airport and the final destination to a delivery service provider (Quackenbush: ¶ 0041-0044 delivery request, and see Fig. 6A-6B showing destination airport, i.e. collection point is at destination airport, and delivery location address; also see ¶ 0040) such that the bag is collected from the collection point at the destination airport and delivered to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0008, ¶ 0048 “In step 418, the baggage is again collected from the airport by a porter or other personnel associated with the baggage delivery Web site and delivered to the final traveler-specified location”)
Claim 3: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitation, Quackenbush/Kumhyr do not explicitly teach, however, Darby teaches:
wherein the verification check further comprises verifying whether a customer name contained in the information associated with the bag matches a customer name contained in the customer request (Darby: ¶ 0018 showing “At step 2.1, the user provides passenger identification data (such as passport number, name, date of birth, nationality and gender for each passenger travelling on the same booking), flight data (such as departing airport and flight number), and specifies a baggage collection point (such as an address or coordinates), number of passengers travelling together, and number of bags” wherein as per ¶ 0019 “the online baggage transfer system interfaces with a flight booking system to verify the passenger identification data against passenger data for the flight held on the flight booking system (e.g. to check that the passengers have been booked onto the flight), and to check that the passengers are entitled to check in the number of bags identified”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verifying the passenger identification data (which includes name data) against the passenger data of Darby in the baggage transportation system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 2. With respect to the following limitation, Quackenbush/Kumhyr do not explicitly teach, but Darby teaches:
wherein the verification check further comprises determining a delivery service provider availability (Darby: ¶ 0020 showing “the online baggage transfer system verifies that the specified collection point is known and available (e.g. corresponds to a database of known addresses within an area in which a collection service is available). If so, the system identifies available times for collection from the collection point, based on a schedule of collection bookings at specified locations and allowing enough time for the baggage to be delivered onto the flight. The system then prompts the user to select an available time for collection. The system may allow multiple passengers on the same booking to have their baggage collected from different locations and/or at different times, in which case the user is prompted to select an available time for collection for each passenger”; also ¶ 0052-0053 and ¶ 0059-0060 showing a verification check of baggage information in order to clear the baggage for routing/delivery to the final destination by delivery service provider, i.e. the delivery service is available, rather than require passenger to retrieve their bags)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification of availability for a service provider to pickup the baggage prior to a departure flight, and verification of baggage information to confirm the bags are cleared for delivery to the final destination by the delivery service provider of Darby in the baggage transportation system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 2. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first destination and the collection point are located in a destination airport (Quackenbush: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0041-0044 showing bags arrive at destination airport, and are also picked up from the airport by the baggage delivery service operator, i.e. both the first destination of the bags and the place at which the bags are picked up and delivered from are located at the destination airport)
Claim 6: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 2. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the first destination is located in a departure country (Quackenbush: Fig. 5D, Fig. 6B, ¶ 0042-0045 showing the destination airport where the baggage arrives, i.e. first destination, is MYR (Myrtle beach), which is in the same country as the departure airport “LGA” ( New York)) and the collection point is located in a departure airport (Quackenbush: ¶ 0047 showing the passenger could bring the bags to the departure airport for collection but then schedules delivery for the bags from the destination airport to the final destination, e.g. “a passenger who carries his or her bags to the airport and checks them in the traditional fashion can make baggage delivery arrangements by accessing an airport kiosk terminal and providing the baggage identifier information (e.g., baggage tag identification numbers) and a destination location. This aspect is especially useful for the business traveler who may have carried his or her bags to the airport but must proceed directly to a business meeting upon arrival at the destination airport and does not wish to carry his or her bags to the meeting. Baggage delivery may also be arranged as part of the usual pre-flight check-in process”; alternatively, if the collection point is at the destination airport, see ¶ 0048 showing delivery personnel collect bags from a location at the destination airport and deliver to final destination)
Note: See the § 112(b) rejection of claim 6 above which renders the claim indefinite. However, prior art is still applied above for the sake of compact prosecution.
Claim 7: See the rejection of claim 2 above teaching analogous limitations to instant claim 7. Quackenbush further teaches: A bag delivery system comprising: a receiver; a transmitter; and a bag delivery service comprising: a processor… (Quackenbush: Fig. 3, ¶ 0040 showing computers each used to receive and transmit data over network/internet, and showing computer server in connection with baggage direct web site accessed over the internet by customer computer/wireless device)
Claim 8: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitation, Quackenbush discusses using a scanning device for tracking of baggage in a database (Quackenbush: ¶ 0029), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Darby teaches:
an optical scanner for obtaining the information associated with the bag and/or customer-related information (Darby: ¶ 0007 “e. a baggage item scanner, at a location at or in the vicinity of the destination or transfer airport, arranged to identify the baggage item by scanning the baggage tag data therefrom; and f. a baggage item scanner, at a location at or in the vicinity of the destination or transfer airport, arranged to identify the baggage item by scanning the baggage tag data therefrom and to access the corresponding baggage data record”; see Fig. 1, 1.6 showing an optical barcode tag, which considered together therefore teaches the scanner for reading this tag would be an optical scanner; also note nonetheless, that Ananda would also teach a barcode scanner in ¶ 0046)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the baggage item scanner to identify and obtain baggage data as taught Darby in the baggage transportation system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
obtaining the information associated with the bag from a bag database (Quackenbush: ¶ 0052 showing status information associated with bag is obtained and provided to the passenger; also see ¶ 0040, ¶ 0046, ¶ 0051 showing database 314 is updated with bag information after tagging and when information associated with tracking the bag is updated)
Claim 10: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising a bag tracking service for providing bag location information wherein the bag tracking service is a flight tracker or a baggage tracker (Quackenbush: Fig. 8, ¶ 0052, and ¶ 0040 showing passenger is provided ability to track the status and location of their baggage via a baggage tracker interface)
Claim 11: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
a mobile device for providing a notification to the customer that confirms a delivery service order (Quackenbush: ¶ 0041 showing website interface displaying a booking confirmation to the user for the delivery of the baggage; ¶ 0008, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0052 showing cell phone is used to interact with and access the website and/or track baggage), or confirms that the bag has been delivered to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0052, Fig. 8 showing confirmation showing the baggage has been delivered to the delivery address of the final destination)
Claim 14: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitations, to the extent Quackenbush does not explicitly teach the following limitations, Darby teaches:
further comprising an availability engine (Darby: ¶ 0071-0076 computer system) configured to determine a delivery service provider availability (Darby: ¶ 0020 showing “the online baggage transfer system verifies that the specified collection point is known and available (e.g. corresponds to a database of known addresses within an area in which a collection service is available). If so, the system identifies available times for collection from the collection point, based on a schedule of collection bookings at specified locations and allowing enough time for the baggage to be delivered onto the flight. The system then prompts the user to select an available time for collection. The system may allow multiple passengers on the same booking to have their baggage collected from different locations and/or at different times, in which case the user is prompted to select an available time for collection for each passenger”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of availability according to a schedule or bookings at specified locations of Darby in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable the automated and secure routing of baggage items received at the transfer or destination airport, without requiring the passenger to collect the baggage item at the destination or transfer airport” (Darby: ¶ 0008). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100318214 A1 to Quackenbush et al. (Quackenbush) in view of US 20040148179 A1 to Kumhyr et al. (Kumhyr), further in view of WO 2018115853 A1 to Darby et al. (Darby), and further in view of US 20110267192 A1 to Goldman et al. (Goldman).
Claim 12: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. With respect to the limitation:
a delivery time database that stores at least one of weather information, time information, and flight operator information for estimating a bag delivery time
While Quackenbush teaches supplementing the database with information with airlines reservation/departure control systems to ensure baggage is routed and delivered properly (Quackenbush: ¶ 0037-0038) and also teaches a passenger ability to check the status of the baggage (Quackenbush: ¶ 0052 and Fig. 8), Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby do not explicitly teach using the stored information to estimate a bag delivery time. However, Goldman teaches wherein the baggage sortation system comprises a delivery time database which stores at least one of weather information, time information (Goldman: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0024-0028, and ¶ 0030 showing transit times and arrival time stored in DB) and flight operator information for estimating a bag delivery time (Goldman: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0024-0028, ¶ 0030 showing transit times/arrival time info is used to predict bag arrival time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the delivery time database for estimating bag delivery times of Goldman in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “passengers are typically not provided status associated with their individual baggage items at either the departure or destination airport. Most particularly at the destination airport, this can contribute to customer anxiety and possible baggage theft” (Goldman: ¶ 0003).
Claim 13: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitations, Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby do not explicitly teach, however, Goldman teaches:
a delivery time database that stores historical data regarding how long it took to deliver a previous bag (Goldman: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0030 showing database platform that stores transit timing information for predicting the transit time between nodes; ¶ 0017 “timing information may be based on historical averages”), wherein the system is further configured to predict a delivery time of the bag based at least in part on the historical data (Goldman: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0025-0027 showing predicting arrival times of customer baggage for at least a terminating node based on the transit times between nodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the predicting of a bag delivery/arrival time at a node based on historical data of Goldman in the baggage transportation system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problems that “passengers are typically not provided status associated with their individual baggage items at either the departure or destination airport. Most particularly at the destination airport, this can contribute to customer anxiety and possible baggage theft” (Goldman: ¶ 0003).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100318214 A1 to Quackenbush et al. (Quackenbush) in view of US 20040148179 A1 to Kumhyr et al. (Kumhyr), further in view of WO 2018115853 A1 to Darby et al. (Darby), and further in view of US 10867276 B1 to Lopez et al. (Lopez).
Claim 15: Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby teach claim 14. With respect to the limitation:
further comprising a queued orders database wherein the determining the delivery service provider availability is based on the number of queued orders stored in the queued orders database
While Darby teaches a queued orders database for determining delivery service provider availability (Darby: ¶ 0020 showing “the online baggage transfer system verifies that the specified collection point is known and available (e.g. corresponds to a database of known addresses within an area in which a collection service is available). If so, the system identifies available times for collection from the collection point, based on a schedule of collection bookings at specified locations and allowing enough time for the baggage to be delivered onto the flight. The system then prompts the user to select an available time for collection. The system may allow multiple passengers on the same booking to have their baggage collected from different locations and/or at different times, in which case the user is prompted to select an available time for collection for each passenger”), but Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby do not explicitly teach a queued orders database wherein determining the delivery service provider availability is based on the number of queued orders stored in the queued orders database.
However, Lopez teaches a queued orders database for storing a list of delivery requests that are awaiting approval (Lopez: Col. 7: 66 – Col. 9: 14 and Fig. 3 showing data store 311 storing aggregated order queue 318 with order details of all pending orders 12; Col. 13: 20-29 showing “The aggregated order queue may include any number of current or pending orders”) and an availability engine for determining whether the delivery service provider is able to provide a delivery service based on a number of delivery requests stored in the queued orders database (Lopez: Col. 13: 20 – Col. 14: 14 showing order management application selects an order from the order queue based on its priority within the number/plurality of pending orders, and determines an assignment to a delivery service provider, with Col. 13: 20-24 showing “a first order in an aggregated order queue is identified. The aggregated order queue may include any number of current or pending orders. The aggregated order queue may list the pending orders in a particular sequence (e.g., in order based on a time the order was received)”; see Col. 13: 20-37 in particular showing the number of pending orders and factors for determining the ranking or orders in the order queue is used to determine the selected order for assignment to a delivery channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the storage of pending orders in an aggregated order queue and the methods for assignment of an order from the number of pending orders of Lopez in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “conversion of the orders received from the multiple different ordering channels into a uniform template including order details and aggregating the order details into an aggregated order queue allows a merchant to manage all electronic orders via a single interface of an electronic device” (Lopez: Col. 5: 35-40) and “more efficient processing of the orders from the variety of ordering channels may be realized resulting in a better user experience for the merchant's users and a better overall customer experience” (Lopez: Col. 5: 43-46). Additionally, “Selecting a delivery channel from multiple candidate delivery channels enables the order management application 100 to track a load or amount of pending orders placed on the various candidate delivery channels and balance the load for current and upcoming orders. Accordingly, the delivery channel selector 108 may load balance the candidate delivery channels in view of the current status information associated with the candidate delivery channels to optimize the assignment of the deliveries to achieve a target delivery efficiency” (Lopez: Col. 9: 61 – Col. 10: 3).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100318214 A1 to Quackenbush et al. (Quackenbush) in view of WO 2018115853 A1 to Darby et al. (Darby).
Claim 16: Quackenbush teaches:
A bag delivery method (Quackenbush: ¶ 0041, ¶ 0008-0011 method for arranging the transportation of baggage for airline passengers) comprising the steps of:
receiving information associated with a bag and a customer request to re-route the bag (Quackenbush: Fig. 4 and ¶ 0042-0044 showing traveler desires to arrange baggage delivery to final destination 408, and traveler provides baggage information and confirms baggage delivery; ¶ 0039 “Passenger 208 need not pick up baggage 202 at a baggage carousel because the baggage is delivered directly to the passenger's designated destination location 216 (e.g., hotel, residence, etc.)”), the customer request including a final destination (Quackenbush: Fig. 6B, ¶ 0044 showing Baggage information filled out by the customer, with delivery location address, i.e. final destination, filled out in the request);
performing a verification check based on the customer request to determine a bag delivery service availability (Quackenbush: ¶ 0040 “After making baggage transportation arrangements, users can check the status of their baggage (e.g., delivered or not delivered) by accessing Web site 310 via conventional computer 302”; also see ¶ 0052 “After appropriate identity authentication (e.g., entry and confirmation of a user password), baggage delivery status 804 (e.g., delivered, delayed, etc.) is displayed to the user”); and
With respect to the limitation:
if the bag delivery service is available, sending a bag routing request to a baggage sortation system such that the bag is re-routed from a first destination at the destination airport to a collection point at the destination airport; and
Quackenbush teaches booking and confirmation of the baggage delivery service, including delivery from the destination airport to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0030, ¶ 0042-0044) and further teaches that the baggage arrives at the destination airport and is processed through baggage handling for pickup by a delivery service (Quackenbush: Fig. 2/¶ 0039 and Fig. 4, ¶ 0048 step 418) – but Quackenbush/Kumhyr do not explicitly teach requesting a baggage sortation system to re-route the bag from a first destination at the destination airport to a collection point in the destination airport.
However, Darby teaches an automated system for identifying baggage that has been booked/cleared for onward delivery and which is automatically routed for onward delivery (i.e. sending a bag routing request/instruction) such that the baggage bypasses a carousel and is delivered to a local delivery partner point, wherein the routing of the baggage may be performed automatically as part of the baggage handling in the arrival airport (Darby: ¶ 0052-0053, Figs. 9 and 10, steps 8.10-8.11, with ¶ 0070-0072 clarifying the functions described in Fig. 9, for example, may be implemented by computer systems such as computer system 200; see Figs. 9-10, see details in drawing sheets 16-17, 19-20, and ¶ 0008, ¶ 0053 re-routed to bypass a baggage carousel and diverted/re-routed to a local delivery partner for delivery to a final destination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the automated bag routing instruction to route the baggage to bypass the carousel to a local delivery partner of Darby in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Kumhyr with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable the automated and secure routing of baggage items received at the transfer or destination airport, without requiring the passenger to collect the baggage item at the destination or transfer airport” (Darby: ¶ 0008).
Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
sending a delivery request including the collection point at the destination airport and the final destination to a delivery service provider (Quackenbush: ¶ 0041-0044 delivery request entered and transmitted to baggage delivery service, and see Fig. 6A-6B showing destination airport, i.e. collection point is at destination airport, and delivery location address; also see ¶ 0040) such that the bag is collected from the collection point at the destination airport and delivered to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0008, ¶ 0048 “In step 418, the baggage is again collected from the airport by a porter or other personnel associated with the baggage delivery Web site and delivered to the final traveler-specified location”)
Claim 17: Quackenbush/Darby teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitations, to the extent Quackenbush does not explicitly teach the following limitations, Darby teaches:
wherein the verification check further comprises determining a delivery service provider availability with an availability engine (Darby: ¶ 0071-0076 computer system) and/or a queued orders database (Darby: ¶ 0020 showing “the online baggage transfer system verifies that the specified collection point is known and available (e.g. corresponds to a database of known addresses within an area in which a collection service is available). If so, the system identifies available times for collection from the collection point, based on a schedule of collection bookings at specified locations and allowing enough time for the baggage to be delivered onto the flight. The system then prompts the user to select an available time for collection. The system may allow multiple passengers on the same booking to have their baggage collected from different locations and/or at different times, in which case the user is prompted to select an available time for collection for each passenger”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of availability according to a schedule or bookings at specified locations of Darby in the baggage delivery system of Quackenbush/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “enable the automated and secure routing of baggage items received at the transfer or destination airport, without requiring the passenger to collect the baggage item at the destination or transfer airport” (Darby: ¶ 0008). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18: Quackenbush/Darby teach claim 16. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising querying legacy systems to obtain the information associated with the bag (Quackenbush: ¶ 0052, ¶ 0040 showing retrieving baggage status information and displaying it to the passenger in response to entering his flight confirmation number or baggage identifier code)
Claim Interpretation Note: The specification (filed 8/13/2024) recites in ¶ 0069 “The mobile application 302 is able to query existing airport legacy systems to provide bag details and the service availability for a given passenger and airport destination via a Bag Delivery Service 303.” Since the claim does not specifically identify what is considered a “legacy” system, and therefore has a broad application, this is interpreted as obtaining the information from any existing computer system.
Claim 19: Quackenbush/Darby teach claim 16. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising the step of notifying a customer associated with the bag that the bag has been delivered to the final destination (Quackenbush: ¶ 0052, Fig. 8 “at any time during the baggage transportation process, a passenger may monitor the status of the baggage delivery process by using a computer or other communications device, such as a cellular telephone or PDA (e.g., Palm VII.™, Handspring Visor.™, etc.). As shown in FIG. 8, to perform such a status inquiry, a user will typically access Web site 310 and enter his or her flight confirmation number 802 and/or other baggage identifier code. After appropriate identity authentication (e.g., entry and confirmation of a user password), baggage delivery status 804 (e.g., delivered, delayed, etc.) is displayed to the user,” i.e. the user is notified of the status; Fig. 8 shows the status as delivered to the same delivery address associated with the final destination that was entered in Fig. 6B)
Claim 20: Quackenbush/Darby teach claim 16. Quackenbush, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising the step of receiving bag location information from a bag tracking service (Quackenbush: Fig. 8, ¶ 0052, ¶ 0040 showing receiving bag location via the baggage delivery service website; Fig. 8 specified a delivery address and a status of “Delivered” to the delivery address, i.e. “bag location information”)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100318214 A1 to Quackenbush et al. (Quackenbush) in view of WO 2018115853 A1 to Darby et al. (Darby), and further in view of US 20110267192 A1 to Goldman et al. (Goldman).
Claim 21: Quackenbush/Darby teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitations, Quackenbush/Darby do not explicitly teach, however, Goldman teaches:
further comprising the step of estimating a bag delivery time based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather information; time information; flight operator information; and historical data regarding how long it took to deliver a previous bag (Goldman: showing database platform that stores transit timing information for predicting the transit time between nodes; ¶ 0017 “timing information may be based on historical averages”; and ¶ 0025-0027 showing predicting arrival times of customer baggage for at least a terminating node based on the transit times between nodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the predicting of a bag delivery/arrival time at a node based on historical data of Goldman in the baggage transportation system of Quackenbush/Darby with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problems that “passengers are typically not provided status associated with their individual baggage items at either the departure or destination airport. Most particularly at the destination airport, this can contribute to customer anxiety and possible baggage theft” (Goldman: ¶ 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628