DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-87 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on September 26, 2024. Claims 1-87 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/03/2025.
Priority
Application 18/851,199 was filed on 9/26/2024 and claims priority to PCT filed 01/31/24.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 32, 51, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32, 51, and 70 recites “by the tracking advice” which appears to be a typographical error. The claim should recite “by the tracking device”. Correction is needed.
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 31-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 31-49 are directed to a method (process), Claims 50-68 are directed to a system (machine) and claims 69-87 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture/manufacture). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 31 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 50 and 69. Claim 31, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method comprising: storing, in at least one memory of a tracking device, a travel application number associated with a passenger; pairing, by the tracking device, with a service device associated with an airline carrier, an airport, a government agency, or a business entity; sending, by the tracking device, the travel application number to the service device; and causing the service device to perform a function based on the received travel application number, wherein the tracking device is affixed to a luggage item of the passenger.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of baggage handling and delivery, and more
specifically, to a global bag tag system and method of use. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a process implemented by a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed manually by person. For example, for the generic computing components, this claim encompasses commercial interactions in a baggage tracking service environment, which can be performed manually by a person by having an airline or airport staff member physically record a passenger’s travel application number, match it to their luggage, and communicate that information to relevant service providers to trigger appropriate actions or permissions. A person can manually track baggage without the use of a computer. The mere nominal recitation of a “memory”, “tracking device”, and “service device” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 31, 50 and 69 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 31 recites the additional element of memory”, “tracking device”, and “service device”. Claim 50 includes the additional element of a Claim 31 as well as the additional elements of “processor” and “one non-transitory, tangible memory”. and Claim 69 recites a “processor”, “a “non-transitory CRM”, and “memory”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed invention recites RFID tracking device that performs its conventional function which is pairing with a receiver and transmitting data for the purpose of tracking, as such the device appears to be used in its ordinary capacity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claims 31, 50, and 69 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements (memory, pairing of devices to a service device, and transmission of tracking data) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. The memory performs generic function of storing data, the pairing between the tracking and service device constitutes operation used to facilitate communication between devices, and the transmission of tracking data is generic function of known tracking systems and RFID technologies. Thus, this does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 31, 50, and 69 are not patent eligible.
Claims 32, 51, and 70 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include requesting authentication. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “tracking device” and “digital certificate” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claims 32, 51, and 70 are patent ineligible.
Claims 33, 52, and 71 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include location information associated with tracking the luggage item wherein the location information is representative of location information of the luggage item. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “computing system”, “a mobile communication device”, and “tracking device which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 34, 36, 38, 53-57, and 72-76 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the travel application number comprises a passenger name record (PNR) number, the service device comprises a Kiosk comprising a bag tag printer, wherein the travel application number comprises a passenger name record (PNR) number, an International Air Transport Association (TATA) license plate number, wherein the pseudo identification number comprises a primary number associated with a stored security screening image, and the function comprises communicating a unique bag identification number. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “service device”, “a baggage handling device of a baggage handling system”, “tracking device”, “security screening machine”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 35, 37, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the travel application number comprises an International Air Transport Association (TATA) license plate number, the service device comprises a baggage handling device of a baggage handling system of the airport, and the function comprises communicating a pseudo identification number and a unique bag identification number. In addition, the claim recites the additional element of a “security screening machine” and “service device” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 39-41, 43, 58-60, 62, 77-79, and 81 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include pairing, the travel application number, where the travel application number comprises a passenger name record (PNR) number, personal identifiable information of the passenger, and baggage source message (BSM) information, wherein the BSM information comprises a plurality of travel application numbers. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “tracking device”, “a mobile communication device”, and “memory” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 42, 44, 61, 63, 80, and 82 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the personal identifiable information comprises at least one of: a date of birth of the passenger; a name of the passenger; a social security number of the passenger; a passport identification number of the passenger; or a government-issued identification number and wherein the plurality of travel application numbers comprises: a passenger name record (PNR) number; and an International Air Transport Association ([ATA) license plate number. The dependent claims 42 and 44 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 45-46, 49, 64-65, 68, 83-84, and 87 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the BSM information comprises reference indicators, the at least one reference indicator to the reference indicators included in the BSM information, and wherein the location information is representative of location information of the luggage item. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “tracking device”, “a second service device”, “notification”, and “computing device”, and “display screen”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 47-48, 66-67, and 85-86 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include communicating, current location information associated with tracking the luggage item and wherein the travel application number comprises an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number and the travel application number to a receiver of a baggage handling system (BHS), wherein the BHS routes the luggage item based on baggage source message (BSM) information accessed using the travel application number. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “tracking device”, “a wireless fidelity (WI-FI) communication protocol”, “a BLUETOOTH communication protocol”, “a cellular communication protocol”, “a long-range radio frequency communication protocol”, “Global System for Mobile Communications”, and “radio frequency identification (RFID)”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 31, 33, 39-42, 46-47, 50, 52, 58-61, 65-66, 69, 71, 77-80, and 84-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated Krasko et al. (US 20170004444).
With regards to Claim 31, Krasko et al. teaches a method comprising: (See Abstract)
storing, in at least one memory of a tracking device, a travel application number associated with a passenger; (See [0021]- the e-tags may be configured to be read by a user device using optical scanning, radio frequency interrogation, wireless querying, or any other suitable method of reading the e-tag. Each e-tag may include a globally unique identifier (GUID) that can be linked with a particular passenger, bag, or travel itinerary by associating a record containing the GUID with one or more other records in the baggage tracking database. Also See [0048]- The GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) may then be stored in the e-tag record 108, and data identifying the passenger 64, such as the passenger's name, address, or an account number, stored in the user record 109. The e-tag record 108 and user record 109 may be associated in the baggage tracking database 22, thereby linking the GUID and the passenger 64.)
*Examiner is interpreting the GUID linked with the travel itinerary disclosed in the art to equate to the travel application number recited in the claim language. The disclosed GUID is understood to serve the same function as the claimed travel application number, namely, to unique identify a specific travel itinerary or booking, and is therefore considered to equate to the claimed element.
pairing, by the tracking device, with a service device associated with an airline carrier, an airport, a government agency, or a business entity; (See [0022]-The baggage tracking system may be configured to communicate with user devices that read the e-tag to retrieve the GUID. These user devices may include, for example, a dedicated reading device provided to employees of the carrier, a mobile device such as a smart phone, or some other type of device connected to a computer system that tracks or otherwise manages passengers or baggage. Also See [0068]-To this end, the baggage tracking application 28 may be in communication with a login security services system 96 managed by a carrier login security system administrator 97.)
sending, by the tracking device, the travel application number to the service device; (See [0058]-In response to reading the e-tag 26, the user device may transmit the GUID to the customer management system 16, which may in turn communicate with the baggage tracking system 20 to identify the travel itinerary based on the GUID. The baggage tracking system 20 may identify the record locator based on the GUID, and notify the customer management system 16 of the flights on which the bag is registered. The customer management system 16 may then determine a flight number or aircraft that the bag should be on based on the travel itinerary.)
*The examiner is interpreting the customer management system disclosed in the art to equate to the service device recited in the claim language, as it performs the same function of receiving and processing travel-related information.
causing the service device to perform a function based on the received travel application number, (See [0058]- In response to reading the e-tag 26, the user device may transmit the GUID to the customer management system 16, which may in turn communicate with the baggage tracking system 20 to identify the travel itinerary based on the GUID. The baggage tracking system 20 may identify the record locator based on the GUID, and notify the customer management system 16 of the flights on which the bag is registered. Also See [0070]- the messaging service 88 may transmit a text message to the passenger 64 at predetermined or user selectable times. For example, the passenger 64 may be notified when the bag is loaded into an aircraft corresponding to a flight number identified by the travel itinerary. This notification may occur for each connecting flight. The passenger 64 may also be notified of the location of the bag when the bag is unloaded from the aircraft and ready for distribution at the final destination.), wherein the tracking device is affixed to a luggage item of the passenger (See [0021]- To track an individual item of baggage, or bag, the baggage tracking system may employ electronic tags, or e-tags. Each e-tag may include a globally unique identifier (GUID) that can be linked with a particular passenger, bag, or travel itinerary by associating a record containing the GUID with one or more other records in the baggage tracking database. system to track the bag so that the e-tag can replace or supplement conventional paper tags. E-tags may be integrated into the baggage prior to the time of sale (e.g., by the manufacturer), or attached by the passenger after the baggage has been purchased. In either case, the e-tags may be configured to be read by a user device using optical scanning, radio frequency interrogation, wireless querying, or any other suitable method of reading the e-tag.).
With regards to Claim 50, Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 30 with the following additions:
A system comprising: a tracking device comprising: at least one processor; (See [0007]- a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code. The program code is configured, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to receive the first request to link the globally unique identifier and the item of baggage.)
at least one non-transitory, tangible memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing at least one instruction; (See [0007]- a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code. The program code is configured, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to receive the first request to link the globally unique identifier and the item of baggage. Also See [0005]- The system includes one or more processors and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory stores data comprising a database and program code that, when executed by the one or more processors.)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: (See [0041]-The processor 32 may operate under the control of an operating system 46 that resides in memory 34. The operating system 46 may manage computer resources so that computer program code embodied as one or more computer software applications, such as an application 48 residing in memory 34, may have instructions executed by the processor 32.)
With regards to Claim 69, Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 30 with the following additions:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute a method comprising: (See [0007]- a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code. The program code is configured, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to receive the first request to link the globally unique identifier and the item of baggage. Also See [0005]- The system includes one or more processors and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory stores data comprising a database and program code that, when executed by the one or more processors.)
In regards to Claim 33, 52, and 71 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
communicating, by the tracking device, location information to a computing system associated with tracking the luggage item independent of a mobile communication device of the passenger, wherein the location information is representative of location information of the luggage item (See [0029]- The baggage reconciliation system 18 may be configured to enable check-in staff, baggage handlers, load controllers, and carriers to exchange data in real-time regarding the status of baggage. This data may include information regarding loading, tracking, location, and management of baggage, and may be accessed on demand. Also See [0061]- The GUID may be transmitted as part of a query that includes data identifying the location of the bag, and may be added to the found-bag record 113. In response to receiving the GUID, the baggage tracking system 20 may retrieve data relating to the bag from the baggage tracking database 22. The baggage tracking system 20 may then transmit this data to one or more of the customer management system 16, baggage reconciliation system 18, baggage tracking website 29, or mobile application 66 for display to the agent who scanned the e-tag 26.).
In regards to Claim 39, 58, and 77 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
pairing, by the tracking device, with a mobile communication device of the passenger; See [0022]-The baggage tracking system may be configured to communicate with user devices that read the e-tag to retrieve the GUID. These user devices may include, for example, a dedicated reading device provided to employees of the carrier, a mobile device such as a smart phone, or some other type of device connected to a computer system that tracks or otherwise manages passengers or baggage. Also See [0068]-To this end, the baggage tracking application 28 may be in communication with a login security services system 96 managed by a carrier login security system administrator 97.)
and communicating, by the mobile communication device, the travel application number, where the travel application number comprises a passenger name record (PNR) number (See [0058]-In response to reading the e-tag 26, the user device may transmit the GUID to the customer management system 16, which may in turn communicate with the baggage tracking system 20 to identify the travel itinerary based on the GUID. The baggage tracking system 20 may identify the record locator based on the GUID, and notify the customer management system 16 of the flights on which the bag is registered. The customer management system 16 may then determine a flight number or aircraft that the bag should be on based on the travel itinerary. See [0025]- Referring now to FIG. 1, an operating environment 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention may include a reservation system 12, a Passenger Name Record (PNR) database 14, a customer management system 16, a baggage reconciliation system 18, a baggage tracking system 20, a baggage tracking database 22, a baggage manufacturer system 24, a passenger system 25, and an e-tag 26. Also See [0027]- To facilitate locating the PNR in the PNR database, a record locator or other suitable record identifier may be associated with the PNR.).
In regards to Claim 40, 59, and 78 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
comprising: receiving, by tracking device, personal identifiable information from the mobile communication device of the passenger (See [0048]- the GUID provided by the e-tag 26 may be linked to the passenger 64. This linking may comprise creating or identifying an e-tag record 108 and a user record 109 in the baggage tracking database 22. The GUID may then be stored in the e-tag record 108, and data identifying the passenger 64, such as the passenger's name, address, or an account number, stored in the user record 109. The e-tag record 108 and user record 109 may be associated in the baggage tracking database 22, thereby linking the GUID and the passenger 64. Also See [0049]-The user record 109 may store passenger data in one or more fields using one or more of a plurality of data structures, such as strings, numbers, or Boolean flags. For example, a plurality of data structures (e.g., three data strings) may be allocated for the passenger name, such as one string for each of the first, middle, and last name of the passenger.).
In regards to Claim 41, 60, and 79 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
further comprising: storing in the at least one memory the personal identifiable information (See [0048]- the GUID provided by the e-tag 26 may be linked to the passenger 64. This linking may comprise creating or identifying an e-tag record 108 and a user record 109 in the baggage tracking database 22. The GUID may then be stored in the e-tag record 108, and data identifying the passenger 64, such as the passenger's name, address, or an account number, stored in the user record 109. The e-tag record 108 and user record 109 may be associated in the baggage tracking database 22, thereby linking the GUID and the passenger 64. Also See [0049]-The user record 109 may store passenger data in one or more fields using one or more of a plurality of data structures, such as strings, numbers, or Boolean flags. For example, a plurality of data structures (e.g., three data strings) may be allocated for the passenger’s name, such as one string for each of the first, middle, and last name of the passenger.).
In regards to Claim 42, 61, and 80 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the personal identifiable information comprises at least one of: a date of birth of the passenger; a name of the passenger; a social security number of the passenger; a passport identification number of the passenger; or a government-issued identification number (See [0049]-The user record 109 may store passenger data in one or more fields using one or more of a plurality of data structures, such as strings, numbers, or Boolean flags. For example, a plurality of data structures (e.g., three data strings) may be allocated for the passenger’s name, such as one string for each of the first, middle, and last name of the passenger.).
In regards to Claim 46, 65, and 84 the Krasko-Price combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the claim above.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
further comprising: communicating, by the tracking device, location information with the notification to the computing system associated with tracking the luggage item, wherein the location information is representative of location information of the luggage item (See [0029]- the baggage reconciliation system 18 may be configured to enable check-in staff, baggage handlers, load controllers, and carriers to exchange data in real-time regarding the status of baggage. This data may include information regarding loading, tracking, location, and management of baggage, and may be accessed on demand. Also See [0060]- The found-bag record 113 may, for example, store information relating to the storage location of the bag and time or date when the bag was found. Also See [0069]- The baggage tracking system 20 may allow the passenger 64 and carrier agents to track the bag during the trip. Each time the GUID is read from the e-tag 26 location information identifying the location of the scan may be sent to the baggage tracking system 20 for storage in the baggage tracking database 22. In an embodiment of the invention, this location data may be used to generate a map showing the last known location of each bag being transported by the carrier.).
In regards to Claim 47, 66, and 85 the Krasko-Price combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the claim above.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the tracking device is configured to communicate using at least one of a wireless fidelity (WI-FI) communication protocol, a BLUETOOTH communication protocol, a cellular communication protocol, a long-range radio frequency communication protocol, a short-range communication protocol, a near-field communication protocol, and Global System for Mobile Communications, and wherein the method further comprises: communicating, by the tracking device, current location information to a computing system associated with tracking the luggage item (See [0074]-The mobile application 66 may include a wireless communication module 114, a scanner module 116, and a camera module 118. The wireless communication module 114 may enable communication between the mobile application 66 and other devices using the wireless communication protocol for exchanging data, such as BLUETOOTH®. In embodiments of the invention using BLUETOOTH®, data encryption in accordance with the BLUETOOTH® standard may be used to protect data exchanged between the e-tag 26 and the mobile application 66. Also See [0021]- To track an individual item of baggage, or bag, the baggage tracking system may employ electronic tags, or e-tags. Each e-tag may include a globally unique identifier (GUID) that can be linked with a particular passenger, bag, or travel itinerary by associating a record containing the GUID with one or more other records in the baggage tracking database. system to track the bag so that the e-tag can replace or supplement conventional paper tags In either case, the e-tags may be configured to be read by a user device using optical scanning, radio frequency interrogation, wireless querying, or any other suitable method of reading the e-tag).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 32, 51, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasko et al. (US 20170004444) in view of Lee et al. (US 20240365115).
In regards to Claim 32, 51, and 70 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
storing, by the tracking device,
The Krasko et al. reference teaches storing by a tracking device but does not teach storing a digital certificate nor requesting, by the tracking device, authentication by the service device using the digital certificate. However, Lee et al. teaches:
a digital certificate; (See [0121]- the digital certificate and pass the tag identifier and location information from the tag device, along with the location information for the relay device to the location tracking service or routing service, as described above with respect to FIG. 6 and FIG. 7.)
requesting, authentication by the service device using the digital certificate (See [0115]- the owner device 604 may request (e.g., pull) the location information from the location tracking service 606. The owner device 604 may then use the private key associated with the public key that was used to encrypt the location information, to decrypt the location information to help find the tag device. Also See [0121]- the relay device may verify the digital certificate and pass the tag identifier and location information from the tag device, along with the location information for the relay device to the location tracking service or routing service, as described above with respect to FIG. 6 and FIG. 7. The user device may then access the location information provided by the tag device and the location information provided by the relay device.).
Krasko et al. and Lee et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tracking baggage being transported by a carrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krasko et al. to further include a digital certificate and requesting, authentication by the service device using the digital certificate as taught by Lee et al. This is desirable such that it may provide additional location information my potentially increase location accuracy and/or confidence in the reported location, as well as potentially help filter out potentially fraudulent location reports.. (See Lee, [0121]).
Claims 43, 62, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasko et al. (US 20170004444) in view of Price et al. (US 20250252390).
In regards to Claim 43, 62, and 81 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the storing in the at least one memory of the tracking device the travel application number further comprises: storing, by the tracking device, (See [0021]- the e-tags may be configured to be read by a user device using optical scanning, radio frequency interrogation, wireless querying, or any other suitable method of reading the e-tag. Also See [0048]- The GUID may then be stored in the e-tag record 108, and data identifying the passenger 64, such as the passenger's name, address, or an account number, stored in the user record 109. The e-tag record 108 and user record 109 may be associated in the baggage tracking database 22, thereby linking the GUID and the passenger 64.)
However, Krasko et al. does not teach baggage source message (BSM) information, wherein the BSM information comprises a plurality of travel application numbers. Price et al. teaches:
baggage source message (BSM) information, wherein the BSM information comprises a plurality of travel application numbers (See [0095] FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary process flow in an exemplary delayed bag alert system comprising an auto delayed bag service module (700). As shown in FIG. 7, when a bag is delayed (750), the auto delayed bag service module (700) may be activated with a trigger (701) from a discrete set of sources which may come from a messaging service for baggage sortation (e.g. SITA Bag Message). The trigger may optionally be in the form of a Baggage Source Message (BSM) or Baggage Processing Message (BPM) or Type B/X message or internal message in A baggage repatriation tool (e.g. WorldTracer®). The system may capture (702) and collect (703) these messages and then identify the unique baggage tag associated with the event or trigger.).
Krasko et al. and Price et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tracking baggage being transported by a carrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krasko et al. to further include baggage source message (BSM) information, wherein the BSM information comprises a plurality of travel application numbers as taught by Price et al. This is desirable such that it may provide a system and a method for re-routing mishandled items without the need to replace or modify tracker, thereby avoiding further delays and use of additional resources during the step of replacing or modifying the tracker. (See Price, [0034]).
Claims 34, 44, 48-49, 53, 63, 67, 72, 82, and 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasko et al. (US 20170004444) in view of Price et al. (US 20250252390), further in view of Nalbant (US 20210049436).
In regards to Claim 34, 53, and 72 the Krasko et al. teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the travel application number comprises a passenger name record (PNR) number, and (See [0025]- Referring now to FIG. 1, an operating environment 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention may include a reservation system 12, a Passenger Name Record (PNR) database 14, a customer management system 16, a baggage reconciliation system 18, a baggage tracking system 20, a baggage tracking database 22, a baggage manufacturer system 24, a passenger system 25, and an e-tag 26. Also See [0086]- The customer management system 16 may display GUID next to a License Plate Number (LPN) so that the check-in agent 76 can verify that a tag having the correct LPN is attached to the bag being checked. The LPN may be numeric code that is printed on a paper tag attached to the bag by the check-in agent 76 at check-in. the service device comprises a Kiosk comprising a bag tag printer, Also See [0084]- Once the bag is linked to the e-tag 26 (e.g., the e-tag record 108 and the bag-record 110 are associated in the baggage tracking database 22), the trip may be linked with the GUID by defining associating the e-tag record 108 and the itinerary record 111 in the baggage tracking database 22. This link between the trip and the GUID and may be defined, for example, in response to the passenger 64 checking in online or via a kiosk. In either case, the passenger 64 may enter the GUID manually, or the GUID may be retrieved by the mobile application 66 or kiosk reading the e-tag 26. Also See [0111]- Printing of the paper tags may be performed by the passenger system 25, or the tags may be stored as a digital file and printed out by the check-in agent 76 at the time the bags are checked.).
However, the Krasko-Price combination does not teach the function comprises printing an International Air Transport Association (IATA) compatible bag tag.
Nalbant teaches:
the function comprises printing an International Air Transport Association (IATA) compatible bag tag (See [0003]- Luggage tags, also known as bag tags, baggage tags, baggage checks or luggage tickets, have traditionally been used by airline companies to route passenger luggage that is checked on to a final destination. Airline tags consist of a printed paper tag. The tag contains basic information such as the airline name, flight number, a digit code and the name of the airport of arrival, and a visual code such as barcode or QR-code. These bag tags are printed on an adhesive paper stock. This printed tag is then attached to the luggage at check in. Also See [0024]- The tag data contains for example information about the owner of the electronic tag. In another example, if the electronic tag is used as a bag tag, the tag data contains information such as the name of the airport of arrival, flight date, departure time, International Air Transport Association (IATA) airport code, the airline code and/or the flight number.
Krasko et al., Price et al., and Nalbant are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tracking baggage being transported by a carrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Krasko-Price combination to further include the function comprises printing an International Air Transport Association (IATA) compatible bag tag as taught by Nalbant. This is desirable such that it may allow for the data included in the tag may in some embodiments be selected based on regulatory requirements, for example IATA regulations. (See Nalbant, [0024]).
In regards to Claim 44, 63, and 82 the Krasko-Price combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the claim above.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the plurality of travel application numbers comprises: a passenger name record (PNR) number; (See [0025]- Referring now to FIG. 1, an operating environment 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention may include a reservation system 12, a Passenger Name Record (PNR) database 14, a customer management system 16, a baggage reconciliation system 18, a baggage tracking system 20, a baggage tracking database 22, a baggage manufacturer system 24, a passenger system 25, and an e-tag 26. Also See [0027]- To facilitate locating the PNR in the PNR database, a record locator or other suitable record identifier may be associated with the PNR.)
However, the Krasko-Price combination does not teach an International Air Transport Association ([ATA) license plate number.
Nalbant teaches:
an International Air Transport Association ([ATA) license plate number (See [0024]- The tag data contains for example information about the owner of the electronic tag. In another example, if the electronic tag is used as a bag tag, the tag data contains information such as the name of the airport of arrival, flight date, departure time, International Air Transport Association (IATA) airport code, the airline code and/or the flight number. Also See [0049]-This portal may be accessed by other computer systems 109 for purposes of data analysis, baggage tracking, baggage sorting, Baggage Source Message (BSM), license plate number, etc. and as such it may primarily be utilized by airlines and airports.)
Krasko et al., Price et al., and Nalbant are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tracking baggage being transported by a carrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Krasko-Price combination to further include an International Air Transport Association ([ATA) license plate number as taught by Nalbant. This is desirable such that it may allow for the data included in the tag may in some embodiments be selected based on regulatory requirements, for example IATA regulations. (See Nalbant, [0024]).
In regards to Claim 48, 67, and 86 the Krasko-Price combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the claim above.
Krasko et al. further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the tracking device, the travel application number to a radio frequency identification (RFID) receiver of a baggage handling system (BHS), (See [0038]- For e-tags including the RFID tag, the user device may include a radio transceiver configured to transmit RF signals that activate the RFID tag, and receive RF signals from the RFID tag that are transmitted in response to said activation. The user device may also include a transceiver configured to communicate with the e-tag 26 by transmitting and receiving data using the wireless communication protocol, e.g., BLUETOOTH®.).
Price et al. teaches:
wherein the BHS routes the luggage item based on baggage source message (BSM) information accessed using the travel application number (See [0095] FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary process flow in an exemplary delayed bag alert system comprising an auto delayed bag service module (700). As shown in FIG. 7, when a bag is delayed (750), the auto delayed bag service module (700) may be activated with a trigger (701) from a discrete set of sources which may come from a messaging service for baggage sortation (e.g. SITA Bag Message). The trigger may optionally be in the form of a Baggage Source Message (BSM) or Baggage Processing Message (BPM) or Type B/X message or internal message in A baggage repatriation tool (e.g. WorldTracer®). The system may capture (702) and collect (703) these messages and then identify the unique baggage tag associated with the event or trigger.).
Krasko et al., Price et al., and Nalbant are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tracking baggage being transported by a carrier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Krasko-Price combination to further include wherein the BHS routes the luggage item based on baggage source message (BSM) information accessed using the travel application number as taught by Price et al. This is desirable such that it may provide a system and a method for re-routing mishandled items without the need to replace or modify tracker, thereby avoiding further delays and use of additional resources during the step of replacing or modifying the tracker. (See Price, [0034]).
However, the Krasko-Price combination does not teach wherein the travel application number comprises an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number.
Nalbant teaches:
wherein the travel application number comprises an International Air Transport Association (