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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 2/05/2026.
Claims 31-35 and 39-42 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 45 has been canceled.
Claims 31-44 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The previous objection to Claim 31 regarding inconsistent punctuation within a list is partially but not entirely obviated by the present claim amendments; therefore, this objection is modified and maintained. All other previous objections are obviated by the present claim amendments; therefore, those objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner agrees that the present amendments to step ix of Claim 31 obviate the previous Claim Interpretations for Claims 41-42.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
While Examiner agrees that the claims as presently amended obviate the previous 112(a) rejections (thus, said rejections are withdrawn), Examiner notes several flaws in Applicant’s arguments related thereto to maintain proper clarity of the record. Applicant’s description of the present amendments as “the recitations of ‘encode’ and ‘encoded’ in the claims are replaced by recitations of ‘barcode and ‘barcoded’” is not accurate, as the offending “encode”/“encoding” limitations of Claim 31 are removed, and the use of all forms of “barcode” in the claims is now entirely passive/descriptive rather than actively claimed as steps themselves (as in the previous use of “encode”/“encoding” as verbs) rather than the one-to-one replacement seemingly asserted by Applicant’s above-quoted verbiage. Further, such equivalent replacement of the previously actively claimed steps of “encode”/“encoding” with “barcode”/“barcoding” (had the claims actually been amended as described here) would not have cured these deficiencies of the original disclosure, as the original disclosure provides no support for the active generation or assignment/affixing of such barcodes (instead, the original disclosure solely supports the scanning of barcodes, display of barcodes, transmission/receipt of barcodes, association of barcodes with other information (e.g., the baggage upon which it is attached, or the person associated with said baggage), and selection of baggage by way of such barcodes).
Additionally, Applicant’s assertion of support based on previously presented Claim 32 is flawed in that (1) Claim 32, contrary to Applicant’s assertion here, was previously rejected under 112(a) (based on its dependence upon Claim 31); (2) in that Claim 32 is not an original claim and thus is not part of the original disclosure (thus, Claim 32 cannot provide support for any other claimed matter); and (3) even if (2) were untrue, the additionally recited limitations of previously drafted Claim 32 did not contain active steps of “barcode”/“barcoding” equivalent to their previous usage in Claim 31, but instead in relevant part merely recited that the bag tags labeled as “the encoded flagged bag tags” comprise barcodes. Nonetheless, Examiner agrees that the use of “barcode” as used in the claims as presently drafted is properly supported by the original disclosure.
The previous 112(b) rejections are obviated by the present claim amendments; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Before presenting substantive arguments that the claims as presently amended are eligible under 101 on their own merits, Applicant presents a series of assertions of purported deficiencies in the most recent previous Office Action. None of these assertions are accurate, with each reflecting either Applicant’s misunderstanding of legal standards/prima facie requirements and/or misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the content of previous Office Actions.
Regarding the asserted “[f]ailure to make a prima facie case under Step 2B,” Applicant continues to misunderstand when and for what a finding of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is required by the Office, despite this having been explained to Applicant in the Final Rejection of 6/11/2025, and reinforced in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/25/2025. The Berkheimer Memo states that evidence must be provided for everything identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional. As the claims do not presently and have never previously recited any elements categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity, there has never been a need for the 101 rejections to identify anything as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus no such Berkheimer-type evidence need be provided. Applicant’s reference to “Applicant’s request” here likewise ignores previously provided explanation that this request was not in keeping with the standards of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, ie: Applicant requested Berkheimer-type evidence for largely abstract aspects of the present invention, and as previously explained, whether abstract ideas are well-understood, routine, and conventional is entirely irrelevant. Further, Applicant’s requests dictate neither legal standards nor Office policy, and honoring such a request that is not in keeping with the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis makes no sense. That Applicant continues to assert this request, despite it having previously been explained as failing to properly conform to the legal standards of 101, is highly puzzling to Examiner. Applicant is strongly advised to re-read the content of the Final Rejection of 6/11/2025 on this topic.
Regarding the asserted “[d]efficient claim construction,” Applicant mistakenly appears to assume that the content of the Claim Interpretation section of the Office Action constitutes the entirety of the claim construction used by Examiner in the examination of the claims. This is untrue. Rather, the content of the Claim Interpretation section contained a clarification of the construction used for the claims which Examiner felt might aid in understanding the Office Action, in this case due to unusual terminology used by Applicant to describe elements of the present invention largely based on function rather than structural makeup. There is no requirement that Examiner explain the construction of each and every element of a claim in an Office Action, as appears to be implied by Applicant. That Examiner doesn’t walk Applicant through his construction of the various claim limitations does not mean that no claim construction has taken place prior to examination, nor that such construction is other than in line with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, nor that said construction was either “contrary to MPEP 2106(II)” or “fail[s] to give due weight to non-generic and technical features” as argued. Rather, these are pure assumptions made by Applicant, assumptions which are incorrect. Further, Applicant’s argument against the previous categorization of the claimed BAIT functions ignores the explicit listing and treatment of “a plurality of security screening image workstations having corresponding workstation IDs that are multiplexed by a plurality of multiplexers having corresponding multiplexer identifiers (MUX IDs),” “recalling the screened bag images via the multiplexers,” and “wherein the multiplexers collect the screened bag images and distribute them for onscreen review at the plurality SVSs” as additional elements in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/25/2025, and Applicant’s assertion that these elements were not properly considered as such is untrue.
Additionally, Applicant’s assertions here regarding multiplexing, following a string of six limitations of Claim 31 as presently amended, are largely untrue in view of the Interpretation Note below (made in view of newly amended claim language), which specifies that under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, only a single claimed function is interpreted as utilizing multiplexers/multiplexing, which Applicant should appreciate as the original disclosure fails to support their use in any other function of the present invention. See below for more information. Lastly on this topic, what Applicant articulates as “improperly aggressively address[ing] the Applicant’s arguments” are a proper evaluation of both Applicant’s almost entirely then-unsupported argument and of what is present in the specification which might have been used to buttress/explain this argument. Examiner is required to answer any argument made by Applicant, and Examiner is unsure what is “improperly aggressive[]” about pointing out the shortcomings of either this argument or the content of the specification in relation to this argument. Applicant’s complaints against Examiner’s previous response to the asserted multiplexer-based argument both misunderstands and in some instances mischaracterizes that response, and Applicant is encouraged to both re-read that explanation in order to properly understand it, as well as to consult the response to Applicant’s present expanded arguments below.
Regarding the asserted “[e]rroneous ‘directed to’ analysis,” Examiner maintains the distinction between the recitation of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One and the directed to analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two, and maintains the inappropriate conflation of these distinct standards in Applicant’s previous arguments. Applicant’s hypothetical regarding a finding of allowability under Step 2A, Prong One is incorrect, as such a claim would be found eligible based on the finding that it did not recite any judicial exceptions, not that it was not directed to any judicial exceptions (a conclusion which need not be reached, as no judicial exceptions to which a claim may or may not be directed exist). See, e.g., the distinction in analyses between Claims 1 and 2 of Example 37 of the PEG, wherein Claim 1 was found to recite judicial exceptions under the Prong One analysis but was found not to be directed to such exceptions under the Prong Two analysis; and by contrast the examination of Claim 2 finds it eligible under Prong One and makes no mention of what the claim is directed to. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Examiner “degrad[es]” the Prong Two inquiry by “only assess[ing] whether additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application,” Examiner is at a loss as to how Applicant believes this to somehow be a degradation of the Prong Two inquiry, as this is precisely what the Prong Two inquiry is/does, as is explicitly stated in at least MPEP 2106.04(II)(A) (including the flowchart thereof, explicitly reproduced by Applicant in this argument, which identifies Prong Two as “Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?”). Further, Applicant appears to conflate the overall conclusion of Step 2 (whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception) and the particular conclusion of Prong One thereof (whether the claim recites a judicial exception). Applicant’s seeming attempts at a “gotcha” here in no way refute the erroneous assertions of the claims not being “directed to” ineligible subject matter both in relation to Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong One (ie: as explicitly argued in the previous Remarks under a Prong One heading, “[t]he new claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they focus on a technical solution…,” something which has nothing to do with the Prong One analysis, as previously and correctly pointed out), a conclusion which belongs to neither consideration.
Regarding the asserted “[e]rroneous conflation of generic and non-generic limitations,” Applicant references an “underlined phrase” where no underlining was actually provided, and Applicant’s subsequent arguments, largely just a string of statements categorizing Examiner’s premises, explanations, and conclusions as “erroneous” absent any explanation as to why Applicant believes this to be so nor any citations to authority/standards which might explain why Applicant concludes these to be “erroneous,” fail to make Applicant’s thought process on this any clearer. Regarding Examiner’s previous explanation that “this and several other arguments fail to distinguish between the non-abstract computer elements and the abstract functions (whether or not said functions are ‘non-generic,’ has nothing to do with recitation of abstract ideas) of the previously drafted claims,” to which Applicant seems to take issue, Applicant stands by this assessment and its correctness in relation to the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. For example, if one were to invent a new mathematical formula for more accurately deriving fluid flow through a pipe, this would certainly be “non-generic,” yet would also be an abstract idea as a mathematical concept, and most likely a mental process as well. Calling a claim limitation “non-generic” in no way prevents it from being abstract.
While Applicant’s exemplary assertion that “there is no explanation as to why associating bag tag numbers with 1) the workstation ID of the security screening image workstations where the screened bag images were captured and 2) the MUX IDs of multiplexers that are associated with the workstation IDs is an abstract mental process or involves organizing human activity” (e.g., the previous 101 rejections specify that this and other recited abstract ideas “fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II))” and “these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”), as Applicant seemingly requires a more granular explanation here, this association is an expression of simple record-keeping. For example, one might log in a paper ledger that a bag with a particular tag number along with the workstation ID which screened the bag/captured images for such screening and the MUX ID associated with such workstations. There is nothing inherently technological about the associations of various pieces of data, something which instead might be accomplished by way of pen and paper or as part of following a set of rules or instructions. That this abstract association is claimed as occurring by way of a computer (ie: the “controller”) does not make this step non-abstract, nor does this conclusion violate the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Examiner yet again notes that simply because the rejection does not explain Examiner’s claim construction, particularly where the claim limitation is perfectly clear and thus no such explanation is necessary, does not mean that the analysis occurred “without performing any claim construction.”
Regarding arguments against another limitation, despite Applicant’s admission that the timing metric thereof (presently removed via amendment) would constitute a mathematical concept, Applicant fails to recognize that there are myriad Examples in the PEG and pieces of caselaw which categorize the transmission/messaging of abstract information (even if this was the step actually being performed in the referenced limitation rather than instead being a condition of its performance, ie: “when the airline-operated system sends Flight Close Messages (FCMs) that identify checked-in passengers who fail to board flights within a boarding window”) is itself an abstract step (see, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). While this argued “sending a message after a temporal condition” is not the active step claimed in that limitation, the actually claimed active step of “initiate a PBR process” also constitutes an abstract step, as such baggage and passenger verifications constitute abstract data analyses. Further, Applicant’s description of this limitation as amended as “recited with the multiplexing machine’s limitations” is at best misleading. While the overall “multiplexed network infrastructure” contains multiplexers, they also contain several other computer elements, and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, this “initiate a PBR process” step is not interpreted as utilizing these multiplexers, as is consistent with the original disclosure which contains no support for the use of multiplexers in this step. See Claim Interpretation section below for more information. Examiner further maintains his explanation regarding Applicant’s repeated assertion of a “real-world problem” in this section, addressed in more detail in response to the next incorrect assertion of rejection deficiencies.
Regarding the asserted “[e]rroneous conflation of section 101 utility and patent eligibility standards,” Applicant’s assertion that “MPEP § 2106, which provides guidance on applying the Alice/Mayo framework to determine patent subject matter eligibility, emphasizes that claims must be ‘integrated into a practical application’ that solves a real-world problem” is untrue, and nothing in this or any other section of the MPEP states otherwise. Indeed, Applicant’s cited language, purportedly belonging to MPEP 2106.04(d) (ie: “a claim that applies an abstract idea in a meaningful way to solve a real-world problem is not directed to an abstract idea”) does not actually exist in MPEP 2106.04(d), nor does it appear to exist anywhere else in the MPEP. Examiner has no idea where Applicant has pulled this language from, as even an internet search has failed to provide any reference (much less one which defines either Office policy or legal standards) which discloses this exact quotation. Examiner notes that a core function of the Office is the maintaining of a clear record of prosecution, and such false quotations of non-existent passages of the MPEP (or anything else) are an egregious violation of this goal. Examiner must therefore request that Applicant provide no further false quotations in the future, and if this was a result of the use of AI (e.g., a hallucination), Examiner must request that Applicant verify any AI-produced content prior to submission. Examiner maintains the distinction between the solution to a “real-world problem” (a concern of utility) and a “technological problem” (as relates to the improvement to a technology consideration within Step 2A, Prong Two – see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a)). Examiner further maintains that the previously argued “real-world problem of flight delays caused by the manual reconciliation of flagged passenger’s bags” is a purely abstract problem rather than a technological one, and further that mere automation of a manual process is insufficient to show such an improvement to a technology (see Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This is to say nothing of the present invention merely achieving a partial automation of the baggage reconciliation process, as certain review steps and selections are only disclosed as occurring by way of a human as has been discussed multiple times in the prosecution of this application.
Regarding the asserted “[e]rroneous application of technology improvement standards,” Examiner points applicant to the citations directly above as to why the argued “solution provided by the claimed invention, which automates and streamlines bag reconciliation processes” is an abstract problem. In making this finding, Examiner is not “abstracting the problems solved by the invention,” but rather properly determining what precisely it is that the present invention improves. That Applicant calls this a technological improvement, or a technological solution to a technological problem, does not make it so, and Examiner has explained at length in previous Office Actions why he disagrees with Applicant’s categorization of this improvement. Nor, as explained above and previously, does a “real-world problem” automatically constitute a technological problem. Here, flight delays, which Examiner agrees constitute a “real-world problem,” are not a technological problem, at least not in the context of how the present invention purports to solve it (ie: by automating and speeding up the entirely abstract baggage reconciliation process). Nothing in Applicant’s supporting arguments makes this otherwise. Regarding the more narrowly argued multiplexer-based “improvement,” see below regarding discussion of this in relation to the claims as presently drafted.
Regarding the asserted “[e]rroneous conflation of Prong One and Prong Two under Step 2A,” Examiner does not incorrectly conclude that Applicant has failed to distinguish between abstract ideas and additional elements. Rather, this is patently evidenced by Applicant’s arguments themselves, which continuously recite abstract elements in relation to standards which analyze additional elements. Further, what Applicant categorizes as a “contradiction” in the previous 101 rejections, purportedly by “characterizing the same limitations as a judicial exception under Prong One and as additional elements under Prong Two,” is incorrect, and evidences Applicant’s continued misapprehension of the rejections themselves and the standards which they apply. Specifically, regarding the limitation in question, the looking up of data (in this case, recorded images) for review (ie: as part of the claimed BAIT Functions) is an abstract idea which might be effectuated manually to achieve the same results. However, the recall of such images specifically “via the multiplexers” as claimed is not part of this abstract idea, but rather constitutes an additional element; hence, why this piece is pulled out and categorized as such. This is not “the same limitation[]” as argued, but rather different aspects of a limitation, as should be clear from the distinction in the language used in referencing the recited abstract ideas and the recited additional elements in the rejections themselves. Applicant is again encouraged to read Office Actions carefully in order to properly understand them.
Regarding the asserted “[r]eliance on irrelevant to [sic] pre-RCE prosecution,” Applicant mischaracterizes the content of Examiner’s previous Response to Applicant’s Arguments sections. If Examiner were in fact relying purely on a previous examination of non-identical claim language, Applicant would be correct; however, this is not what is occurring in any of Applicant’s cited passages of the previous Office Action. Similarly, Applicant’s assertions that these references ignore distinctions between the claims as previously drafted and as then-drafted is incorrect, and none of these references support such an assumption. These references to previously provided explanations do not state that the analysis is identical between the different draftings of the claims, but rather point out that Applicant continues to misapprehend and misapply legal standards in the same way(s) as previously pointed out to Applicant (and thus, Applicant’s misapplication of such standards to the updated claim drafting in the same manner). This is not improper reliance on the application of such standards to previous claim drafting, but rather shorthand to prevent having to explain Applicant’s same misunderstandings of legal standards related to the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis to Applicant again. These previous explanations of legal standards remain relevant in view of Applicant’s continued misapprehension of the same legal standards in the same way, regardless of changes in the claim drafting to which these standards are applied in a given round. Examiner will continue the use of such shorthand where appropriate, and Applicant should understand this shorthand for what it is rather than mischaracterizing it as a wholesale abdication of re-analysis based on amended claim language.
This section includes further mischaracterizations of the content of the previous Office Actions. Examiner notes that Applicant’s language “[w]hile noting ‘argumetns made during previous prosecution of the instant application’ are ‘entirely irrelevant at present’” improperly ties quoted language directed to two different responses to two different arguments made in the previous Office Action, one of which dealt with an argument against the claims as then-amended and the other of which dealt with arguments (similar to those presently being addressed) which asserted purported errors in Examiner’s previous analysis of the claims as then-previously drafted. This tying of quotes from different responses is at best misleading and inappropriate. Further, Examiner’s reference to a previously explained and clarified legal standard (ie: that computer implementation of an abstract step does not prevent said step from reciting an abstract idea) did not indicate, as argued, that the previous examination was performed “[w]ithout giving any weight to the machine-based aspects of the Applicant’s Prong One argument,” but rather analyzed Prong One (the recitation of judicial exceptions) properly in view of the legal standards thereof (e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”) and putting the claimed “machine-based aspects” in their proper context as additional elements considered under Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B. Regarding the argument that Examiner acknowledged was “different in the content of the particularly referenced combination of limitations” but was still “highly similar to previously advanced well-understood, routine, and conventional arguments made in the previous round of prosecution” was not presented “without expla[nation]” as argued, but rather explained that it contained the same misapprehension of legal standards as in the previously referenced argument, ie: the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration of Step 2B does not apply to abstract ideas, as argued in both previous versions of this argument. In other words, though as noted the particular limitations referenced by Applicant in these arguments differ, both improperly attempt to apply the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration to a variety of claim elements which are abstract. Examiner maintains the clarity of this explanation, particularly when considering the referenced content of the Final Rejection of 6/11/2025.
Regarding the asserted “[f]ailure to consider examples used in conjunction with 2019 PEG,” Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s attempt to analogize to Example 42 of the PEG. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” Unlike the specification of the present invention, which (at least in relation to the argued multiplexer-based “improvement”) vague references “physical limitations” without any attempt to explain what those physical limitations might be, and present a conclusory statement that the disclosed configuration “overcomes” this unexplained physical limitation, the passages of the specification presented in relation to Example 42 clearly lay out a technological shortcoming of the prior art and the manner in which that invention solves said shortcoming with detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this improvement from said description in the specification. This is acknowledged in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis of Example 42’s Claim 1 as “specific improvement over prior art systems.” The present invention fails to do the same, as noted in the previous Office Action and discussed elsewhere in the present Remarks by Applicant. As the original disclosure fails to identify a technological problem in the prior art in any meaningful way (ie: by merely stating that “physical limitations” purportedly exist without explaining what they are), and similarly fails to explain how this unexplained technological problem in the prior art is overcome such that it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, the evidentiary standards set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) are not met, and consequently, “the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
Finally, Applicant presents arguments directed to the claims as presently drafted. Applicant first asserts that the claims fall into a proper statutory category under Step 1, and Examiner agrees (though for completeness, Examiner notes the potential improper hybrid claims created by the present amendments of Claims 39-42 – see 112(b) rejections below).
Next, Applicant presents arguments related to the standards of Step 2A, Prong One, collectively asserting that no limitation of the claims as presently drafted can recite an abstract idea “because they are each limited by non-generic multiplexing machine’s limitations and by the association of barcodes with flagged bag tag numbers.” Examiner disagrees. Firstly, “the association of barcodes with flagged bag tag numbers” is an abstract idea in similar manner and for similar reasons as the association of bag tag numbers with workstation IDs and multiplexer IDs addressed above. There is nothing inherently technological about the identification of bag tags by way of barcodes, nor about record-keeping related to such baggage using barcode numbers. Secondly, while the overall claimed system includes multiplexers and as such this overall system is identified collectively as “multiplexed network infrastructure,” the vast majority of the functions performed in the claims as presently drafted are not performed in relation to these multiplexers, but instead are solely performed in relation to one or more of various elements which are identified as generic computers in the specification (e.g., desktop computers at a workstation, tablets, smartphones, etc.) and have been explicitly acknowledged as such via the Claim Interpretation section of the previous Office Action. As specified in at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The only claimed elements which could reasonably be argued as “non-generic” are the multiplexers of Claim 31 and, potentially, the barcode scanner of Claim 32. Regarding the latter, the original disclosure only mentions such a scanner in Paragraph 0052, wherein no structural details of said scanner are provided. As would readily be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, any standard tablet or smartphone at Applicant’s date of filing would include a camera capable of reading barcodes; thus, this barcode scanner is not non-generic as claimed or as described. Regarding the former, the specification only discusses said multiplexers in Paragraphs 0041, 0045, and 0077, and similarly presents no structural details of said multiplexers (Examiner notes for clarity that the arrangement of multiplexers as connected to multiple workstations/SVSs is not structural makeup of the multiplexers themselves), which does not speak to a non-generic element. Further, computer-based multiplexers and their use in data transmissions via composite signals date back to the 1960s. This, in combination with the lack of any discussion of structural makeup of these multiplexers, would indicate that such multiplexers are indeed generic computer elements as of Applicant’s date of filing. Even if none of this were accurate, the above-quoted passage of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) does not limit computer-based execution of steps still reciting abstract ideas to such steps being performed “on a generic computer,” but also “2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.” For the reasons above, either of 2) or 3) would apply to the functionality performed by the barcode scanner (e.g., as reading a bag identification number, in this case in the form of a barcode) or the multiplexers (e.g., as providing abstract data in the form of baggage images from potentially multiple sources to a singular destination for review). For these reasons, the claims continue to recite abstract ideas, even in view of the claimed arrangement of computer elements.
As discussed above regarding the purported deficiency of the previous Office Action regarding the categorization of the association of barcodes with bag tag numbers, this is an abstract idea. Additionally, the argued functions of displaying of barcoded flagged bag tag numbers and initial reconciliation statuses for human review (other than the display itself, which constitutes a non-abstract additional element), receiving user selection of particular such barcoded bag tag numbers, looking up data associated with the selected bag tag numbers (in this case, MUX IDs) from a database, initiating a lookup of baggage screening images associated with the selected flagged bag tag numbers, updating baggage reconciliation statuses, and conveying reconciliation messages all recite abstract ideas. As further discussed above and previously, whether abstract steps are “non-generic” in no way prevents such steps from reciting an abstract idea.
Applicant next presents arguments related to Step 2A, Prong Two, particularly asserting improvements to a technology. Applicant’s real-world problem argument remains flawed in the same ways as discussed above and previously, describing abstract, business-related problems (e.g., human error possible in manual baggage reconciliation, and the time-consuming and purportedly inefficient nature thereof, potentially resulting in delays to flights and flight operations) rather than a technological one. As noted above, mere automation of a manual process has long been judicially recognized as insufficient to show an improvement to a technology.
Regarding the use of multiplexers to funnel baggage images from multiple sources to singular destinations, as noted above regarding the argued “non-generic multiplexing machine,” such computer-based multiplexers date back to the 1960s, and would indeed be considered generic computer components as of Applicant’s filing date. Similarly, the technological manner in which the multiplexers operate in the present invention conforms to the standard use of such multiplexers, thus constituting a generic computer function as of Applicant’s filing date. Applicant even admits as much in stating that “As is well known, multiplexing combines multiple signals into a composite signal for transmission over a single medium, allowing the simultaneous transmission of multiple data streams over a single channel. By consolidating multiple signals, multiplexing reduces the need for additional physical connections, saving resources. This resource-saving feature, in the context of the present invention, addresses the physical limitations of a network of screening image workstations at an airport and enhances the overall bag reconciliation process by automating and streamlining operations in real time. Specifically, this physical limitation is addressed by connecting multiplexers to dispersed image screening stations and associating bag tag numbers with workstation IDs linked to the selected MUX IDs, thereby improving the functionality of prior art reconciliation methods” (Examiner’s emphasis).
In the above-quoted passage of the present Remarks, Applicant’s verbiage somewhat expands the unexplained “physical limitations” of Paragraph 0077 beyond what is actually disclosed therein. However, as discussed above, an improvement to a technology must be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the content of the original disclosure (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). As such, even if this argued feature did constitute an improvement to a technology (which, to be clear, it is not – see below), Applicant’s expansion here of this description beyond what is present in or would be recognized by the original disclosure fails to meet the evidentiary standards required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), constituting no more than attorney argument which cannot take the place of evidence in the record (see, e.g., Cf In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Even ignoring this failure to meet evidentiary standards of an improvement to a technology, as mentioned above, computer-based multiplexers and their use in data transmissions via composite signals date back to the 1960s. No person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude that the application of multiplexers as claimed and described in the present invention (ie: performing in their customary manner, though here specifically in relation to the transmission of image data) as an improvement to a technology as of Applicant’s effective date of filing (12/05/2023). Rather, this would merely constitute the use of a long-pre-existing technology, achieving the long-pre-existing advantages thereof, in a particular field of use (ie: baggage reconciliation at an airport).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant’s argument against a prima facie case of ineligibility “by failing to take official notice in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), setting forth factual statements and an explanation that support the Examiner’s position as outlined in the USPTO Memorandum dated April 19, 201[8]” is incorrect. To summarize the above and previously provided explanations to this effect, Examiners are required to take official notice (and thus provide evidence) of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in relation to claim elements categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity (see, e.g., the Step 2B analyses of Example 46, Claim 1 of the October 2019 PEG Update, and of Example 47, Claim 2 and Example 48, Claim 1 of the July 2024 PEG Update). As no claim element is or has ever been so-categorized in the prosecution of this application, no such official notice or factual underpinning for such unnecessary notice need be provided to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility. Further, Examiner does not “fail[] to appreciate the technical nuances of the non-generic multiplexing machine’s limitations,” but rather addresses these elements properly based on their description in the original disclosure and how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them as of Applicant’s effective filing date, as explained above and previously.
Claim Objections
Claims 31, 33, 34, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 31, step v (previously step iii) lacks punctuation at its closing. In order to maintain consistency with the other steps in this list, a semicolon should be added.
In Claim 31, “…wherein each screening image workstation…” should read “…wherein each security screening image workstation…” to maintain proper antecedent basis.
In Claim 31, “ix) cause the PBR stations to…” should read “ix) cause the PBR workstations to…”
In Claim 33, “…reconciliation messages are conveyed an Automated Baggage System (ABS)” should read “…reconciliation messages are further conveyed to an Automated Baggage System (ABS)” to function correctly grammatically and to properly relate back to step xi (and the system structure recited as performing this step) of system Claim 31.
In Claim 34, “the airport security systems” (plural) should read “the airport security system” to maintain proper antecedent basis with Claim 31.
In Claim 42, “…images can not be retrieved…” should read “…images cannot be retrieved…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the original disclosure (e.g., Paragraphs 0039, 0059, 0093 as filed; original Claims 4 and 19), “display,” “security screening image workstations,” “secondary viewing stations (SVSs),” and “a PBR workstation” are each interpreted as comprising a respective computer; “controller” is interpreted as disclosing a processor of such a computer; and “Passenger to Bag Reconciliation (PBR) application” is interpreted as software executing on such a computer.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31-44 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 31 contains the following limitation: “xi) convey reconciliation messages that convey the updated reconciliation statuses of the flagged bags to the airline-operated system and the security system using the multiplexed network infrastructure in real time.” In this limitation, it is unclear as drafted whether the term “the security system” is intended to relate back to the subject of the claim itself (“A security system for reconciling passenger bags at an airport”) or the “airport security system operating independently…” disclosed earlier in Claim 31. To avoid cascading indefiniteness issues of the former interpretation, for the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted as “the airport security system.” Claims 32-44 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 31.
Claim 33 contains the term “an Automated Baggage System (ABS).” It is unclear as drafted whether this is intended to relate back to the “Automated Baggage System (ABS)” of Claim 31 (upon which Claim 33 eventually depends) or to recite a new ABS. For the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted as “the Automated Baggage System (ABS).” Claims 34-38 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 33.
Claims 39-42 are each amended to recite active steps (ie: the updating of reconciliation statuses) rather than, as previously drafted, merely further narrow the content a previously claimed term (ie: the reconciliation status). Claims 39-42 are drafted as system claims, yet these newly claimed active steps are drafted purely as functions, unconnected to any claimed system structure. As systems are defined by structure, it is unclear as drafted if these limitations are to be given patentable weight given that they are not part of the claimed system structure. As such, this introduces ambiguity as to whether the claim is infringed by the creation of a system or the use of such a system to perform the claimed process. Additionally, it is unclear as drafted whether any of these limitations is intended to relate back to step x of Claim 31, or to indicate a separate updating step. For the purposes of this examination, “wherein the reconciliation statuses are updated to indicate…” in each of these claims will be interpreted as “wherein the updating of the reconciliation statuses after the on-screen review comprises indicating…” in light of the drafting of Claim 31.
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 31-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 31, the limitations of executing a PBR process at the airport; allowing the airport to store, manage, and distribute real-time operational data; executing Bag Auto ID Transfer (BAIT) Functions that cause bag images captured at the plurality of security screening image workstations (the screened bag images) to be recalled for review; associating Passenger Name Records (PNRs) that identify passengers during a check in process (the checked-in passengers) with corresponding bag tag numbers that identify bags of the checked-in passengers (the checked-in bags); associating each bag tag number with 1) the workstation ID of the security screening image workstations where the screened bag images were captured and 2) the MUX IDs associated with the workstation IDs; ii) initiate a PBR process when the airline-operated system sends Flight Close Messages (FCMs) that identify checked-in passengers who fail to board flights (the flagged passengers); iii) retrieve the bag tag numbers that are associated with the bags of the flagged passengers (the flagged bag tag numbers) from the passenger database PNRs associated with the flagged passengers (the flagged PNRs); iv) associate barcodes with the flagged bag tag numbers (the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers); v) assign reconciliation statuses during the PBR process to the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers, including a reconciliation status assigned when PBR process is initiated (the initial reconciliation status); vi) show the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers and the initial reconciliation statuses on the display; vii) receive input corresponding to a selection of the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers, wherein the barcoded flagged bag numbers are associated with corresponding selected flagged bag tag numbers in the screening database (the selected flagged bag tag numbers); viii) retrieve MUX IDs associated with the selected flagged bag tag numbers from the screening database (the selected MUX IDs); ix) initiate BAIT Functions that recall the screened bag images associated with the selected flagged bag tag numbers (the selected flagged screened bag images) from the security screening image workstations having workstation IDs that are associated with the selected MUX IDs for on screen review at the SVSs if the selected flagged screened bag images can be retrieved from the security screening image workstations; x) update reconciliation statuses of the flagged bags after the on-screen review based on selections of assigned reconciliation statuses on the SVSs (the updated reconciliation statuses); and xi) convey reconciliation messages that convey the updated reconciliation statuses of the flagged bags to the airline-operated system and the security system in real time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of executing a PBR process at the airport; allowing the airport to store, manage, and distribute real-time operational data; executing Bag Auto ID Transfer (BAIT) Functions that cause bag images captured at the plurality of security screening image workstations (the screened bag images) to be recalled for review; associating Passenger Name Records (PNRs) that identify passengers during a check in process (the checked-in passengers) with corresponding bag tag numbers that identify bags of the checked-in passengers (the checked-in bags); associating each bag tag number with 1) the workstation ID of the security screening image workstations where the screened bag images were captured and 2) the MUX IDs associated with the workstation IDs; ii) initiate a PBR process when the airline-operated system sends Flight Close Messages (FCMs) that identify checked-in passengers who fail to board flights (the flagged passengers); iii) retrieve the bag tag numbers that are associated with the bags of the flagged passengers (the flagged bag tag numbers) from the passenger database PNRs associated with the flagged passengers (the flagged PNRs); iv) associate barcodes with the flagged bag tag numbers (the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers); v) assign reconciliation statuses during the PBR process to the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers, including a reconciliation status assigned when PBR process is initiated (the initial reconciliation status); vi) show the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers and the initial reconciliation statuses on the display; vii) receive input corresponding to a selection of the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers, wherein the barcoded flagged bag numbers are associated with corresponding selected flagged bag tag numbers in the screening database (the selected flagged bag tag numbers); viii) retrieve MUX IDs associated with the selected flagged bag tag numbers from the screening database (the selected MUX IDs); ix) initiate BAIT Functions that recall the screened bag images associated with the selected flagged bag tag numbers (the selected flagged screened bag images) from the security screening image workstations having workstation IDs that are associated with the selected MUX IDs for on screen review at the SVSs if the selected flagged screened bag images can be retrieved from the security screening image workstations; x) update reconciliation statuses of the flagged bags after the on-screen review based on selections of assigned reconciliation statuses on the SVSs (the updated reconciliation statuses); and xi) convey reconciliation messages that convey the updated reconciliation statuses of the flagged bags to the airline-operated system and the security system in real time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a controller executing a Passenger to Bag Reconciliation (PBR) application that uses a multiplexed network infrastructure comprising an Automated Baggage System (ABS) and a centralized database system; a display; wherein said multiplexed network infrastructure comprises: a plurality of networked security screening image workstations that are connected to a plurality of multiplexers at the airport (the airport network), wherein each screening image workstation and multiplexer in the airport network is identified by a corresponding workstation identifier (workstation ID) and a multiplexer identifier (MUX ID); and a plurality of secondary viewing stations (SVSs) that are connected to the plurality of security screening image workstations via the plurality of multiplexers; wherein each of the SVSs is connected to a PBR workstation; recalling the screened bag images via the multiplexers; wherein the multiplexers collect the screened bag images and distribute them for onscreen review at the plurality SVSs; and wherein the PBR application configures the controller to interface with an airline-operated system having a passenger database and an airport security system operating independently from the airline-operated system having a screening database. A controller executing a Passenger to Bag Reconciliation (PBR) application that uses a multiplexed network infrastructure comprising an Automated Baggage System (ABS) and a centralized database system; a display; wherein said multiplexed network infrastructure comprises: a plurality of networked security screening image workstations that are connected to a plurality of multiplexers at the airport (the airport network), wherein each screening image workstation and multiplexer in the airport network is identified by a corresponding workstation identifier (workstation ID) and a multiplexer identifier (MUX ID); and a plurality of secondary viewing stations (SVSs) that are connected to the plurality of security screening image workstations via the plurality of multiplexers; and recalling the screened bag images via the multiplexers, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Wherein each of the SVSs is connected to a PBR workstation; wherein the multiplexers collect the screened bag images and distribute them for onscreen review at the plurality SVSs; and wherein the PBR application configures the controller to interface with an airline-operated system having a passenger database and an airport security system operating independently from the airline-operated system having a screening database, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 32-44, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 31, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 31 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 32 discloses wherein the controller is further configured to interface with a barcode scanner for receiving scan signals corresponding to the selection of the barcoded flagged bag tag numbers (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 33 discloses wherein the reconciliation messages are conveyed to an Automated Baggage System (ABS) (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 34 discloses wherein the reconciliation messages comprise Bag Process Messages (BPMs) exchanged between the ABS, the airline-operated system, and the airport security systems (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 31), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 35 discloses wherein the reconciliation messages comprise Baggage Unload Messages (BUMs) that instruct removal of the flagged bags from the flight if corresponding flagged screened bag images could not be retrieved from the screening database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 36 discloses wherein the FCMs are received from a Departure Control System (DCS) of the airline-operated system (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 37 discloses wherein the flagged screened bag images conveyed to the SVSs are captured by an Explosive Detection System (EDS) during the bag screening process (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 38 discloses wherein the flagged screened bag images retrieved from the screening database are computed tomography (CT) images (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 39 discloses wherein the reconciliation statuses are updated to indicate whether the that the flagged bags are clear to fly after the flagged screened bag images are reviewed (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 40 discloses wherein the reconciliation statuses are updated to indicate whether the that the flagged bags are not clear to fly after the flagged screened bag images are reviewed (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 41 discloses wherein the reconciliation statuses are updated to indicate that the flagged bags are under review if the flagged screened bag images can be retrieved from the screening database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 42 discloses wherein the reconciliation statuses are updated to indicate that the flagged bags are not clear to fly if the flagged screened bag images can not be retrieved from the screening database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 43 discloses wherein the controller is configured to assign color coded reconciliation statuses that are shown on the display device (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 31), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 44 discloses where the SVSs further comprise Automated Baggage System (ABS) Sortation Allocation Computer (SAC) (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
US 7,802,724 – “Identifications and Communications Methods,” Nohr, disclosing a system which tracks baggage though airports and flight itineraries and performs corrective actions based thereon, e.g., identifying instances where passengers do not show up and board an airplane, and consequently having their checked-in luggage removed from the underbelly of the airplane
US 6,108,636 – “Luggage Handling and Reconciliation System Using an Improved Security Identification Document Including Contactless Communication Insert Unit,” Yap et al, disclosing a system for luggage reconciliation which identifies whether a passenger has boarded a plane and consequently determines whether checked luggage associated with said passenger can be loaded onto the aircraft
TSA, Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (July 16, 2015), disclosing structural setups and functional steps for airport-based security review of baggage
Regulation (EC) No 300-2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2008-03-11), disclosing EU-based airport security regulations, including the identification of each item of hold baggage as “accompanied” or “unaccompanied,” and the requirement that no unaccompanied baggage may not be transported except in particular circumstances (e.g., “subjected to appropriate security controls”)
Patel, Airport Passenger Processing Technology, Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses, 385 (2018), disclosing techniques for airport-based security screenings
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights