DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-81 have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 1-81 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/851,202 filed 09/26/2024 claims priority to provisional application 63/598,824 filed 11/14/2023, and provisional application 63/543,667 filed 10/11/2023. The application is also continuation-in-part of application 18/337,288, filed 06/19/2023, which is a continuation-in- part of Application 18/332,377, filed 06/09/2023, which is a continuation of Application 18/201,908 filed 05/25/2023 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,881,057), which is a continuation of Application 18/311,566, filed 05/03/2023. Wherein each of App. Nos. 18/337,288, as a continuation-in-part of, and App. Nos. 18/332,377, 18/201,908, and 18/311,566, as continuations that directly claim the priority benefit of, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/104,359 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,682,241), filed 02/01/2023.
The Application is also based on and claims priority of PCT/US2024/013083, PCT/US24/13221, and PCT/US24/13226, all filed on 01/26/2024, PCT/US2024/012226 and PCT/US2024/012231, both filed on 01/19/2024, PCT/US24/13257, PCT/US24/13258, PCT/US24/13259, PCT/US24/13261, PCT/US24/13262, and PCT/US24/13263, all filed on 01/27/2024, and PCT/US24/13594, PCT/US24/13597 and PCT/US24/13599, all filed on 01/30/2024.
The Application is also a continuation-in-part and claims priority to 18/529,705, filed on 12/05/2023, and 18/421,581, 18/421,595, and 18/421,601, all filed on 01/24/2024, which are continuations of 18/337,288; 18/418,972 filed on 01/22/2024; 18/406/785, filed 01/08/2024; and 18/514,015, 18/514,826, 18/514,195, 18/514,877, 18/514,914, 18/514,937, 18/514,924, 18/514,295, 18/515,004, 18/514,369 and 18/515,060, all filed on 11/20/ 2023; and U.S. Pat. App. Nos. 18/427,323, 18/427,396, 18/427,438, 18/427,469, and 18/427,516, all filed on 01/30/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-81 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. Claims 1-81 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for tracking luggage data. For Claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 the limitations of (Claim 1, Claim 58 being representative):
Regarding Claim 1,
acquiring, […], an […] representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum from a substrate associated with a global bag tag on a first luggage item of a registered passenger to create a […] GMMT data record linked to the registered passenger;
accessing, […], a global tracking expanded baggage source message (GTE-BSM) containing a passenger name record (PNR) number of the registered passenger using a unique identifier representative of the […] GMMT data record from a […] system associated with a baggage handling service;
retrieving, […], check-in information of a leg of travel of the registered passenger with a designated travel carrier using information associated with the PNR number; and
checking in, […], the first luggage item with the designated travel carrier based on the retrieved check-in information for the leg of travel,
Regarding Claim 58,
matching, […], first travel information comprising a passenger name and an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number for a luggage item of a registered passenger in a master travel manifest with second travel information from a created B-Type message comprising a reference indicator representative of a non-routine route of the luggage item;
retrieving, […], third travel information of the luggage item generated by a baggage handling system correlated to a time frame prior to or after the created B-Type message to locate the luggage item; and
generating, […], delivery instructions based on a baggage journey travel record associated with the master travel manifest for a current travel journey of the luggage item, wherein the delivery instructions are configured to reroute the luggage item to a location of a reservation of the registered passenger to recover the luggage item from the non-routine route, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting an electronic acquiring device, electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum, processor, digital GMMT data record, a non-transitory, tangible memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the electronic acquiring device, electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum, processor, digital GMMT data record, a non-transitory, tangible memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, this claim encompasses a person to acquire a representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum from a substrate associated with a global bag tag on a first luggage item of a registered passenger to create a GMMT data record linked to the registered passenger, access a global tracking expanded baggage source message (GTE-BSM) containing a passenger name record (PNR) number of the registered passenger using a unique identifier representative of the GMMT data record from a system associated with a baggage handling service, retrieve check-in information of a leg of travel of the registered passenger with a designated travel carrier using information associated with the PNR number, and check in the first luggage item with the designated travel carrier based on the retrieved check-in information for the leg of travel and match first travel information comprising a passenger name and an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number for a luggage item of a registered passenger in a master travel manifest with second travel information from a created B-Type message comprising a reference indicator representative of a non-routine route of the luggage item, retrieve third travel information of the luggage item generated by a baggage handling system correlated to a time frame prior to or after the created B-Type message to locate the luggage item, and generate delivery instructions based on a baggage journey travel record associated with the master travel manifest for a current travel journey of the luggage item, wherein the delivery instructions are configured to reroute the luggage item to a location of a reservation of the registered passenger to recover the luggage item from the non-routine route based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 recite the additional elements of an electronic acquiring device (Claims 1, 20, 39 ), electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum (Claims 1, 12, and 20), processor (Claims 1, 12, 20, 58, 66, and 74), digital GMMT data record (Claim 12), a non-transitory, tangible memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Claim 20, Claim 66), a non-transitory computer readable medium (Claim 39, and Claim 74) that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic acquiring device (Claims 1, 20, 39 ), electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum (Claims 1, 12, and 20), processor (Claims 1, 12, 20, 58, 66, and 74), digital GMMT data record (Claim 12), a non-transitory, tangible memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (Claim 20, Claim 66), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Claim 39, and Claim 74), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-19, 21-38, 40-57, 67-73, and 75-81 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2, 20, and 40 merely describe(s) verifying an identity prior to checking in the luggage item. Claim(s) 4, 23, and 42 merely describe(s) the designated travel carrier, and retrieved check-in information. Claim(s) 5, 24, and 43 merely describe(s) acquiring a representation of an originating airline bag tag identifier associated with or printed on a bag tag from an originating airline carrier that is on the first luggage item of the registered passenger to create a data record liked to the originating airliner carrier, wherein the airline bag tag identifier comprises an international air transport association license plate and the originating bag tag identifier data record is representative of the international air transport association license plate. Claim(s) 7, 26, and 45 merely describe(s) creating the digital GMMT data record to include the GMMT code indicum that is a permanently assigned license plate compatible with an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate format for a duration that expires after a predetermined useful life. Claim(s) 8, 27, and 46 merely describe(s) creating an originating airline bag tag identifier data record, and creating a luggage item manifest record from the originating airline bag tag identifier data record and the passenger name record number where the luggage item manifest record comprises the retrieved check in information. Claim(s) 9, 28, and 47 merely describe(s) creating a luggage item manifest record from the GMMT data record and PNR number where the luggage item manifest record comprises data for check-in for a leg of travel of the luggage item with the designated travel carrier. Claim(s) 10, 29, and 48 merely describe(s) the designated travel carrier. Claim(s) 14, 33, and 52 merely describe(s) obtaining boarding pass information for the return flight of each of the non-registered passengers and communicating the boarding pass information to each of the one or more non-registered passengers. Claim(s) 59, 67, and 75 merely describe(s) a created B-Type message. Claim(s) 61, 69, and 77 merely describe(s) receiving an originating BSM prior to matching and determining a routine route for the luggage item. Claim(s) 62, 70, and 78 merely describe(s) determining that the reference indicator represents a deviation in time or distance between the routine route of the luggage item and a current route of the luggage item is greater than a threshold. Claim(s) 63, 71, and 79 merely describe(s) determining that the reference indicator is representative of information indicating that the luggage item is not seen, notifying the registered passenger that the luggage item is not seen based on the information indicating that the luggage item is not seem, and submitting a claim to an air carrier based on the information indicating that the luggage item is not seen. Claim(s) 64, 72, and 80 merely describe(s) forming a master travel manifest on a current day of travel with the first travel information related to registered passengers traveling on the current day of travel. Therefore claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 14-15, 21, 23-24, 26-29, 33, 40, 42-43, 45-48, 52, 59, 61-64, 67, 69-72, 75, and 77-80 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24-28, 30, 32-36, 38, 40-41, 44-47, 49, 51-55, 57, 59-65, 68-73, 76-81 include the additional elements of a processor, electronic acquiring device, and digital GMMT data record. The processor, electronic acquiring device, and digital GMMT data record are analyzed in the same manner as the a processor, electronic acquiring device, and digital GMMT data record in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above.
Dependent Claim(s) 3, 6, 11-13, 16-19, 22, 25, 30-32, 34-38, 41, 44, 49-51, 53-57, 60, 65, 68, 73, 76, and 81 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74. In addition, it recites the additional elements of a travel history database, printer, a second computing system, tracking device, machine learning algorithms . The travel history database, printer, a second computing system, tracking device, machine learning algorithms, are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19, 21-38, 40-57, 67-73, and 75-81 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Non-Final Rejection Independent claims 1, 20, 39, 58, 66, and 74 are allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-19, 21-38, 40-57, 59-95, 67-73, and 75-81 are also allowable by virtue of their dependencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite elements that limit the claims to a practical application of any alleged abstract idea, and when taken as a whole are directed to a specific application including limitations that amount to significantly more than any judicial exception. In regards to Claims 1, 20, and 39 the practical application of “checking in, by at least one of the at least one processor, the first luggage item with the designated travel carrier based on the retried check-in information for the leg of travel”, and for claims 58, 66, and 74 the practical application of “generating, by at least one of the at least one processor, delivery instructions based on a baggage journey travel record associated with the master travel manifest for a current travel journey of the luggage item, wherein the delivery instructions are configured to reroute the luggage item to a location of a reservation of the registered passenger to recover the luggage item from the non-routine route”. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s argument that the claim addresses the problem of finding missing, lost, rerouted, delayed, or mishandled luggage item, however, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the generic computing components that result from the implantation of Applicants claim. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the office fails to provide any evidence that a human or the human mind can acquire “an electronic representation…from a substrate”, therefore claim 1 does not meet an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to acquire a representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum from a substrate associated with a global bag tag on a first luggage item of a registered passenger to create a GMMT data record linked to the registered passenger, access a global tracking expanded baggage source message (GTE-BSM) containing a passenger name record (PNR) number of the registered passenger using a unique identifier representative of the GMMT data record from a system associated with a baggage handling service, retrieve check-in information of a leg of travel of the registered passenger with a designated travel carrier using information associated with the PNR number, and check in the first luggage item with the designated travel carrier based on the retrieved check-in information for the leg of travel for claim 1, 29, and 39, and match first travel information comprising a passenger name and an International Air Transport Association (IATA) license plate number for a luggage item of a registered passenger in a master travel manifest with second travel information from a created B-Type message comprising a reference indicator representative of a non-routine route of the luggage item, retrieve third travel information of the luggage item generated by a baggage handling system correlated to a time frame prior to or after the created B-Type message to locate the luggage item, and generate delivery instructions based on a baggage journey travel record associated with the master travel manifest for a current travel journey of the luggage item, wherein the delivery instructions are configured to reroute the luggage item to a location of a reservation of the registered passenger to recover the luggage item from the non-routine route, for Claims 58, 66, and 74. Applicant further argues that the Claim does not describe matter falling under commercial interactions, or legal interactions, but the Examiner does not assert they fall into this category, therefore this argument is moot. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to check in and track luggage data, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626