DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-37 and 43-75 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 May 06, 2025. Claims 1-37 and 43-75 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1- 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/15/2025.
Priority
Application 18/851,208 was filed on 5/06/2025 claims the priority benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/598,824, filed November 14, 2023, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/543,667, filed October 11, 2023. This application is also a continuation-in-part of, and claims the priority benefit of, each of: U.S. Patent Application No.18/418,972, filed January 22, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/197,840, filed May 16, 2023.
This application is also a continuation-in-part of, and claims the priority benefit of, each of: U.S. Patent Application No. 18/337,288, filed June 19, 2023, which is a continuation-in- part of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/332,377, filed June 9, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/201,908 filed May 25, 2023 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,881,057), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/311,566, filed May 3, 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 February 1, 2023; and, wherein for the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, App. No. 18/311,566 is a continuation of App. No. 18/104,359.
This application is also based on and claims the priority benefit of the following co-pending applications: International Application Nos. PCT/US2024/013083, PCT/US24/13221, and PCT/US24/13226, all filed on January 26, 2024; International Application Nos. PCT/US2024/012226 and PCT/US2024/012231, both filed on January 19, 2024; International Application Nos. PCT/US24/13257, PCT/US24/13258, PCT/US24/13259, PCT/US24/13261, PCT/US24/13262, and PCT/US24/13263, all filed on January 27, 2024; and International Application Nos. PCT/US24/13594, PCT/US24/13597 and PCT/US24/13599, all filed on January 30, 2024.
This application is also a continuation-in-part of, and claims the priority and benefit
of the following co-pending applications: U.S. Pat. App. No. 18/529,705, filed on December 5, 2023, and U.S. Patent App. Nos. 18/421,581, 18/421,595, and 18/421,601, all filed on January 24, 2024, which are continuations of U.S. Pat. App No. 18/337,288; U.S. Patent Application No 18/418,972, filed on January 22, 2024; U.S. Patent Application No. 18/406/785, filed January 8, 2024; and U.S. Patent Applicant Nos. 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 November 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 January 30, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 06, 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 § 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 43-75 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 43-53 are directed to a method (process), Claims 54-64 are directed to a system (machine) and claims 65-75 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 43 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 54 and 65. Claim 43, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method comprising: electronically acquiring, by at least one electronic acquiring device, an electronic 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 digital GMMT data record linked to the registered passenger, wherein the GMMT code indicum is an International Air Transport Association (IATA) compatible license plate; accessing, by a first processor, a global tracking expanded baggage source message (GTEBSM) containing a passenger name record (PNR) number of the registered passenger using a unique identifier representative of the digital GMMT data record from a computer system associated with a multi-mode baggage handling service; receiving, by the first processor, information that confirms an identity of the registered passenger associated with the PNR number; and linking, by at least one second processor in communication with the first processor, the GTE-BSM of the registered passenger to each different airline baggage source message (A- BSM) associated with each different luggage item associated with a traveling passenger name associated with the PNR number in the GTE-BSM.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of the handling of luggage items for registered passengers that are traveling. 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 and handle luggage without the use of a computer. The mere nominal recitation of a “electronic acquiring device”, “an electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum”, “a digital GMMT data record”, “the digital GMMT data record from a computer system”, “first processor”, and ‘second processor” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 43, 54 and 65 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 43 recites the additional element of “electronic acquiring device”, “an electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum”, “a digital GMMT data record”, “the digital GMMT data record from a computer system”, “first processor”, and ‘second processor”. Claim 54 recites the additional element of “processor”, “one non-transitory, tangible memory”, electronic acquiring device”, “an electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum”, “a digital GMMT data record”, and “the digital GMMT data record from a computer system” and Claim 65 recites “ non-transitory computer readable medium”, “processor”, electronic acquiring device”, “an electronic representation of a global multi-mode travel (GMMT) code indicum”, “a digital GMMT data record”, “the digital GMMT data record from a computer system”, “first processor”, and ‘second processor. 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. 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 43, 54, and 65 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. 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 43, 54, and 65 are not patent eligible.
Claims 44-45, 55-56, and 66-67 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include checking in the first luggage item of the registered passenger within a check-in window, for a leg of travel with an air carrier and wherein each A-BSM is an IATA compatible baggage source message (BSM). In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “second processor” which is 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, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 46-47, 57-58, 68-69, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include accessing a database associated with the PNR number to obtain names of non-registered passengers associated with current journey information of the registered passenger, linking the separate T-BSM corresponding to each separate luggage item of each nonregistered passenger to the GTE-BSM, and checking-in each different luggage item of the non-registered passengers identified in the database associated with the PNR number, wherein each different luggage item associated with the non-registered passengers has a different A-BSM. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “second processor” which is 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, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 48-49, 59-60, and 70-71 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include receiving, the information that confirms the identity of the registered passenger comprises: capturing an image of the registered passenger; performing facial recognition based on the image of the registered passenger and a stored image of the registered passenger, and an image of each separate luggage item of other traveling passenger names associated with the PNR number, prior to departing a luggage pickup location. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “processor” and “imaging 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. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 50, 61, and 72 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include generating, a GTE-BSM comprising a passenger name of the registered passenger and the unique identifier, wherein the unique identifier comprises a GMMT bag tag number. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “processor” and “GMMT code indicum” 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, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 51, 62, and 73, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include automatically creating a luggage item manifest record from the digital GMMT data record and the PNR number. In addition, the claims recite a new additional element of “a second processor” which is 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, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 52-53, 63-64, and 74-75, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the duration is renewable and the predetermined useful life is in a range of one month to 10 years or one month to 20 years and wherein the predetermined useful life is coextensive with a lifetime of the registered passenger. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
With regards to independent Claim 43, Mateer (US 20100211418 A1) discloses a baggage tagging system, in addition to data about the air travel, and another mode of transportation that acquired electronic representation of a barcode from a baggage tag on a luggage to create a record, retrieves check-in information of a leg of travel of the passenger with a name record, and checks the luggage item in based on the leg of travel. McElhannon et al. (US20060145852) discloses checking in passengers and baggage for a second mode of transportation, while still onboard a first mode of transportation. In particular, this invention is directed to checking passengers and baggage onto an airline flight, before arriving at the airport.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest “ electronic 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 digital GMMT data record linked to the registered passenger, wherein the GMMT code indicum is an International Air Transport Association (IATA) compatible license plate; accessing, by a first processor, a global tracking expanded baggage source message (GTEBSM) containing a passenger name record (PNR) number of the registered passenger using a unique identifier representative of the digital GMMT data record from a computer system associated with a multi-mode baggage handling service; the GTE-BSM of the registered passenger to each different airline baggage source message (A- BSM) associated with each different luggage item associated with a traveling passenger name associated with the PNR number in the GTE-BSM.”
Independent claims 54, and 65 are directed to the same subject matter and recite similar claim limitations to that of independent claim 1 and are therefore allowable over prior art for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 44-53, 55-64, and 66-75 are also allowable by virtue of their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trippie-Smith et al. (US 20230300561) discloses the tracking device includes a motion detector that is attachable to the object. The motion detector is configured to collect a first data packet which is indicative of a movement of the object. A processing unit is operatively associated with the motion detector such that the processing unit can process the first data packet to determine whether the object is in one of an active state and a passive state.
Dyranaes (US 20170268891 A1) discloses a real-time multimodal travel estimation and routing system configured to receive an input designating a ground-based destination, a request for an available ground-based travel option, and display an estimated time of arrival to the ground-based destination based on first data stored on-board the aircraft for the second mode and real-time flight information for the aircraft for the first mode. The system is further configured to receive an update of real-time information for the available ground-based travel option and update the first data stored on-board the aircraft.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is 571-270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626