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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/24/2025, with respect to claims 50-69 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant notes that the "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" grouping cannot be expanded beyond "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions." The MPEP specifies that the "certain methods of organizing human activity" groupings are "limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings." Because claim 1 is not directed to "social activities, teaching, [or] following rules or instructions," claim 1 is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Even if the claims are directed towards the "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people," which Applicant does not concede, the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 represents an improvement to the field to baggage tracking. Applicant's Specification describes "holes" in a bag's journey through an airport that "makes it more difficult to manage irregular baggage situations and can cause airlines to lose revenue due to the cost of locating and repatriating lost bags, as well as creating negative relationships between passengers and airlines, and between airlines and airports."2 Thus, claim 1 represents an improvement to the field of baggage tracking by generating a tracking message, which includes a checkpoint identifier associated with a specific checkpoint. Said another way, claim 1 provides a technological solution to the "holes" in a bag's journey as identified by Applicant's Specification. Thus, claim 1, as a whole, represents "a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. "3 In short, claim 1, as amended, integrates the alleged abstract idea in practical application and recites patent eligible subject matter”, (see Remarks pg. 2-3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for determination baggage location, which is a method of managing interaction between people as two individuals may communicate with one another to know the whereabouts for a piece of luggage using an updated database, also using computing elements such as “baggage tracking system, mobile device, mobile application, tracking database of claim 1; baggage tracking system, tracking database, mobile application of claim 10; mobile application, mobile device, tracking database of claim 12” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Lastly, with respect to computing elements showing an improvement for the business method of determining baggage location "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “The cited references fail to show or suggest "generate a tracking message that comprises a checkpoint identifier and a baggage identifier, wherein the checkpoint identifier is associated with a checkpoint in a predefined journey of a bag from an origin to a destination location and the baggage identifier is associated with the bag, the tracking message being generated on arrival of the bag at the checkpoint," as recited by claim 1. While Krasko discusses a "baggage tracking system,"6 the described "baggage tracking system" does not "generate a tracking message that comprises a checkpoint identifier and a bagage identifier," as recited by claim 1”, (see remarks pg. 4-5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Krasko shows generation of a tracking message as it shows when an bag is loaded and unloaded with a corresponding flight number such as “¶69-¶70 shows notifications with as messages transmitted to show locations and when bag is loaded and unloaded such as “the passenger 64 may be notified when the bag is loaded into an aircraft corresponding to a flight number identified by the travel itinerary. This notification may occur for each connecting flight. The passenger 64 may also be notified of the location of the bag when the bag is unloaded from the aircraft and ready for distribution at the final destination…passenger 64 may also track the progress of an effort to locate a lost bag by accessing the baggage tracking system 20 online as described above””. Additionally, ¶21 shows utilization of identifiers for bag and for the locations through the tracking system such as “track an individual item of baggage, or bag, the baggage tracking system may employ electronic tags, or e-tags. Each e-tag may include a globally unique identifier (GUID) that can be linked with a particular passenger, bag, or travel itinerary by associating a record containing the GUID with one or more other records in the baggage tracking database. The GUID may be used by the system to track the bag so that the e-tag can replace or supplement conventional paper tags”, for checkpoint (location) identifier, see Krasko ¶29 for example as it shows part of data stored for baggage tracking is location such as “baggage reconciliation system 18 may be configured to enable check-in staff, baggage handlers, load controllers, and carriers to exchange data in real-time regarding the status of baggage. This data may include information regarding loading, tracking, location, and management of baggage, and may be accessed on demand”, also ¶59 shows storing location for each time bag is scanned at a location such as “the baggage tracking system 20 may retrieve data relating to the bag, such as the characteristics of the bag, prior locations of the bag, or the identity of the passenger using the bag from the baggage tracking database 22. This data may also be retrieved based on the GUID retrieved from the e-tag 26, displayed to the check-in agent 76 by the customer management system 16, and used to verify that the bag in question is the correct bag”.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for tracking baggage using mobile device/application.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 10 and 16 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “generate a tracking message that comprises a checkpoint identifier and a baggage identifier, wherein the checkpoint identifier is associated with a checkpoint in a predefined journey of a bag from an origin to a destination location and the baggage identifier is associated with the bag, the tracking message being generated on arrival of the bag at the checkpoint, and transmit the tracking message” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (baggage tracking system, mobile device, mobile application, tracking database of claim 1; baggage tracking system, tracking database, mobile application of claim 10; mobile application, mobile device, tracking database of claim 12) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (baggage tracking system, mobile device, mobile application, tracking database of claim 1; baggage tracking system, tracking database, mobile application of claim 10; mobile application, mobile device, tracking database of claim 12). The baggage tracking system, mobile device, mobile application, tracking database of claim 1; baggage tracking system, tracking database, mobile application of claim 10; mobile application, mobile device, tracking database of claim 12, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the baggage tracking system in claims 2-9, 11; mobile application in claims 4-5, 7, 15-16 and 18; tracking database of claim 7, 11, 18; GPS/Latitude and Longitude coordinates in claims 3 and 14; electronically reading in claims 4 and 15; RFID and BLE beacon in claims 5 and 16; JavaScript Object Notation message format in claims 9 and 20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasko et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170004444 - hereinafter Krasko) in view of Olsen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20060091206 - hereinafter Olsen) in view of Oz et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180240067 - hereinafter Oz).
Re. claim 1, Krasko:
A baggage tracking system, the system comprising:
a mobile device; and [Krasko; ¶73].
generate a tracking message that comprises a checkpoint identifier and a baggage identifier, wherein the checkpoint identifier is associated with a checkpoint in a predefined journey of a bag from an origin to a destination location and the baggage identifier is associated with the bag, the tracking message being generated on arrival of the bag at the checkpoint, and [Krasko; ¶25 shows baggage tracking database 22, ¶69-¶70 shows notifications with as messages transmitted to show locations and when bag is loaded and unloaded such as “the passenger 64 may be notified when the bag is loaded into an aircraft corresponding to a flight number identified by the travel itinerary. This notification may occur for each connecting flight. The passenger 64 may also be notified of the location of the bag when the bag is unloaded from the aircraft and ready for distribution at the final destination…passenger 64 may also track the progress of an effort to locate a lost bag by accessing the baggage tracking system 20 online as described above”. ¶73 shows database receiving and storing records with changes with a time when changes were made such as “database management module 106 may also enable the baggage tracking system 20 to store data received from the mobile application 66 in the baggage tracking database 22. The database management module 106 may maintain a history of data stored in the baggage tracking database 22, such as a record of changes showing times changes were made”].
Krasko doesn’t teach, Oz teaches:
a mobile application stored on the mobile device, the mobile application configured to: [Oz; ¶47 shows mobile application on client device].
a. generate a message by combining the article information with the location information; [Oz; ¶47 shows using application on mobile device, sending of a tracking number relating to package (article information) with vehicle location associated to the package, ¶50 additionally shows the location tied to the package, such as “the current GPS coordinates of a package delivery vehicle is transmitted from a GPS-based delivery application 315 resident in a client device associated with a package delivery vehicle. The client device resides 1) in the package delivery vehicle 322, or 2) in a handheld tool that travels with a delivery person 304 of the package delivery vehicle. The GPS-based delivery application 315 can transmit the current GPS coordinates of the package delivery vehicle/person along with the first virtual key for authentication”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Oz in the system of Krasko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Krasko doesn’t teach, Olsen teaches:
transmit the tracking message to a tracking database. [Olsen; ¶25 shows wireless device (mobile device) on a package as shown in Fig. 3, and the wireless device transmits signal (message) with a timestamp and location such as “wireless access point 22, and any related systems in communication therewith, can be configured to generate or receive timestamp and location data upon receipt of the unique device identifier 20 from the wireless device 18. In one embodiment, the timestamp data may be included in the signal transmitted by the wireless device 18. By detecting the occurrence of such transmissions from the device 18, a time and date during which the device (and thus the object 14) is physically within transmission range of a particular access point 22 can be recorded in association with the unique device identifier 20”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Olsen in the system of Krasko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the checkpoint identifier is configured to include a unique identifier associated with the location of the checkpoint. [Krasko; ¶86-¶87 shows LPN are created for the tag and they’re updated as they’re associated to a location].
Re. claim 3, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the checkpoint identifier comprises a location code, a location text descriptor, or GPS/latitude and longitude coordinates. [Krasko; ¶99-¶100 shows data input for bag to describe location].
Re. claim 4, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the bag is uniquely identified by the baggage identifier and the mobile application is further configured to obtain the baggage identifier by electronically reading a bag tag associated with the bag. [Krasko; ¶86-¶87].
Re. claim 5, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the bag is uniquely identified by the baggage identifier and the mobile application is further configured to obtain the baggage identifier via an RFID or a BLE beacon. [Krasko; ¶21 shows the use of an e-tag for the baggage identifier such as “track an individual item of baggage, or bag, the baggage tracking system may employ electronic tags, or e-tags. Each e-tag may include a globally unique identifier (GUID) that can be linked with a particular passenger, bag, or travel itinerary by associating a record containing the GUID with one or more other records in the baggage tracking database. The GUID may be used by the system to track the bag so that the e-tag can replace or supplement conventional paper tags”].
Re. claim 6, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the checkpoint is associated with one or more of: a baggage loading location, a baggage unloading location, a baggage security scanning location, a gate associated with a departing flight, an aircraft loading location, an aircraft unloading location, and a baggage collection location. [Krasko; ¶59-¶60, ¶86-¶87].
Re. claim 7, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko teaches:
wherein the mobile application is further configured to generate and transmit a plurality of tracking messages for the bag to thereby enable the tracking database to record a history of a bag journey over time. [Krasko; ¶67 shows baggage tracking database (historical data) showing most recent location data as the last known location of the bag based on scan from the e-tag as shown in ¶68. Further historical data associated with the bag tag including LPN associated with the bag tag is shown in ¶90 as the LPN is used in the baggage tracking database as well such as “if the bag does not have an e-tag 26, the e-tag 26 has been separated from the bag, the e-tag 26 is unresponsive to reading, or the e-tag 26 only returns the LPN, the passenger 64, check-in agent 76, loading agent 84, or lost-and-found agent 86 may retrieve passenger, baggage, or itinerary data using the LPN. The GUID may be associated with the LPN in the baggage tracking database 22 at check-in, e.g., in response to the LPN being assigned to the bag. In response to receiving a query including the LPN, the baggage tracking system 20 may retrieve the GUID based on the LPN, and use the GUID to retrieve passenger data, baggage data”].
Re. claim 8, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 1.
Krasko doesn’t teach, Olsen teaches:
wherein the tracking messages are API payloads. [Olsen; ¶29 shows information for packages are transferred to online shipping system (API data processor) such as “the association between the device identifier 20 and the tracking number can be carried out by using a scanning device to scan a first barcode found on a standard shipping label associated with the object or package 14 and to scan a second barcode found on the wireless device 18, the first barcode having been previously encoded with the tracking number and the second with the device identifier. This information can then be fed into an online shipping system, such as UPS.com, for example, which handles the logistics of storing the unique device identifier 20 in association with the object 14's standard tracking number in an appropriate database 54. The process by which this information is associated can be carried out by either a customer or the carrier at a time when the package 14 is being prepared for shipment”]. Please see motivation to combine Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 10,
System of claim 10 substantially mirrors the System of claim 1.
Re. claim 11, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz teach baggage tracking system of claim 10.
Krasko doesn’t teach, Olsen teaches:
The baggage tracking system of claim 10, wherein the tracking database is further configured to store the transmitted tracking message with a timestamp that indicates the time the tracking message was received by the tracking database. [Olsen; ¶25 shows wireless device (mobile device) on a package as shown in Fig. 3, and the wireless device transmits signal (message) with a timestamp and location such as “wireless access point 22, and any related systems in communication therewith, can be configured to generate or receive timestamp and location data upon receipt of the unique device identifier 20 from the wireless device 18. In one embodiment, the timestamp data may be included in the signal transmitted by the wireless device 18. By detecting the occurrence of such transmissions from the device 18, a time and date during which the device (and thus the object 14) is physically within transmission range of a particular access point 22 can be recorded in association with the unique device identifier 20”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Olsen in the system of Krasko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 12,
Method of claim 12 substantially mirrors the System of claim 1.
Re. claim 13,
Method of claim 13 substantially mirrors the System of claim 2.
Re. claim 14,
Method of claim 14 substantially mirrors the System of claim 3.
Re. claim 15,
Method of claim 15 substantially mirrors the System of claim 4.
Re. claim 16,
Method of claim 16 substantially mirrors the System of claim 5.
Re. claim 17,
Method of claim 17 substantially mirrors the System of claim 6.
Re. claim 18,
Method of claim 18 substantially mirrors the System of claim 7.
Re. claim 19,
Method of claim 19 substantially mirrors the System of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz in view of Colby et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190166121 - hereinafter Colby).
Re. claim 9, Krasko in view of Olsen in view of Oz system of claim 1.
Krasko doesn’t teach, Colby teaches
wherein the tracking messages are API payloads in JavaScript Object Notation message format. [Colby; ¶12 shows API message in JavaScript format such as “request message is received via the API gateway 10. The request includes a URL for accessing the content stored on the web server 8, as well as a unique identifier for either the recipient 6 and/or their device 6a. According to the illustrated embodiment, the delivery request message takes the form of a JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) document that is posted to a REST endpoint for the API gateway 10”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Colby in the system of Krasko, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 20,
Method of claim 20 substantially mirrors the System of claim 9.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628