DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 19/086026 filed on 03/20/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
In a preliminary amendment, Applicant cancelled Claims 1-29 and added Claims 30-49. Claims 30-49 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the foreign application EP18215355.1 filed on 12/21/2018, PCT/GB2019/053608 filed on 12/18/2019, PCT/GB2019/053608 filed on 12/18/2019, and parent application 17/415419 filed on 06/17/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 recites the limitation “wherein the unique baggage identifier fixed to the baggage is a bag tag, an RFID or a BLE beacon.” Examiner recommends Applicant amend the claim to recite “wherein the unique baggage identifier fixed to the baggage is a bag tag, a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), or a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon.”
Claim 49 recites the limitation “receiving, at an (application programming interface) API data processor”. Examiner recommends Applicant amend the claim to recite “receiving, at an application programming interface (API) data processor”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 35 and 41 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 35 recites the limitation “wherein the unique baggage identifier is a bag tag, an RFID or a BLE beacon”. In Claim 30, the unique baggage identifier is merely data which is generated and used to form a unique identifier. Thus, it is unclear how identifier data is a physical tag, RFID, or beacon.
Examiner interprets and recommends Applicant amend the limitation to recite “wherein the unique baggage identifier is in a bag tag, an RFID or a BLE beacon”
Claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more second computing devices are one or more hand-held scanning devices and preferably wherein scanning the unique identifier and the location identifier is performed by a scanning app running on a mobile communications device”.
The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because the intended scope of the claim is unclear and specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.”
Examiner interprets the claim without the term “preferably” – “wherein the one or more second computing devices are one or more hand-held scanning devices and wherein scanning the unique identifier and the location identifier is performed by a scanning app running on a mobile communications device”.
Examiner recommends Applicant remove the term “preferably” from the claim.
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 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 30-47 and 49 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claim 48 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine).
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 30 recites:
for an item of baggage, generating, … , a unique baggage identifier and associating the unique baggage identifier with unique record data to form a unique identifier;
generating, … , a baggage message including the associated unique identifier and a status of the item of baggage;
generating, … , a baggage tag including the unique identifier and affixing the baggage tag to the item of baggage;
updating, … , the baggage message with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprises an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier and is retrievable upon request.
Independent Claim 48 recites:
generate a unique baggage identifier and associate the unique baggage identifier with unique record data to form a unique identifier;
generate a baggage message including the associated unique identifier and a status of an item of baggage;
generate a baggage tag including the unique identifier for affixing the baggage tag to the item of baggage; and
… update the baggage message with an updated status of the item of baggage, the updated status comprising an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier and being retrievable upon request.
Independent Claim 49 recites:
generating, … a unique identifier associated with the unique baggage identifier and the unique record data; and a baggage message comprising the unique identifier and a status of the item of baggage;
transmitting the baggage message …;
receiving, … in response to …, a second data … comprising the unique identifier and a location identifier; and
updating, … , the baggage message … with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprises an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier and is retrievable upon request.
Certain methods of organizing human activity
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (fundamental economic practices or commercial or legal interactions). Specifically, commercial interactions/business relations of tracking baggage on cruise liners. See page 4 lines 23-30 of the specification “enable the cruise operator to know exactly how many bags are on board the ship… provide a unique identifier which links a bag to an individual passenger in a manner that can be read and accessed centrally by an administrator” and page 5 lines 13-17 “providing full visibility to the cruise operator of the bags that have been loaded onto the ship. This enables the operator to plan how best to move baggage”.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 30 recites the additional elements of one or more first computing devices and the limitation “scanning, via one or more second computing devices, the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”. Claim 48 recites the additional elements of a processor and the limitation of “a scanning device in communication with the processor, the scanning device being configured to scan the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”.
Claim 49 recites the additional elements of “receiving, at an (application programming interface) API data processor associated with a cloud-based computing platform, a first API payload transmitted by a first computing device, wherein the first API payload comprises a unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage; retrieving, from a database operatively connected to the API data processor, unique record data corresponding to the unique baggage identifier of the first API payload”; “database for storage in connection with the unique record data”; “at the API data processor in response to a second computing device scanning the unique identifier, a second API payload transmitted by the second computing device”.
The additional elements of one or more first computing devices, a processor, and a database are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations of “scanning, via one or more second computing devices, the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”, “a scanning device in communication with the processor, the scanning device being configured to scan the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”, and “a second computing device scanning the unique identifier” are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the scanning of the unique identifier and location identifier is limited to execution by the second computing device/scanning device and further, that the application of the abstract idea of “tracking baggage” is limited to location monitoring (on the cruise ship) through the field of use of scanning identifiers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Limitations which amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment do not meaningfully limit the claim.
“Retrieving, from a database operatively connected to the API data processor, unique record data corresponding to the unique baggage identifier of the first API payload”, “database for storage in connection with the unique record data”, and “stored within the database” of Claim 49 may also be interpreted as extra-solution activity of data storage and retrieval. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“Receiving, at an (application programming interface) API data processor associated with a cloud-based computing platform, a first API payload transmitted by a first computing device, wherein the first API payload comprises a unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage” and “[receiving] at the API data processor in response to a second computing device [scanning the unique identifier], a second API payload transmitted by the second computing device” of Claim 49 are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of business relations relates to activities executed in an API environment (execution by the API data processor receiving API payloads) and further, limiting the abstract idea of business relations to specifically data related to the unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, whether individually or viewed in an ordered combination, because mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, field of use, and extra-solution activity do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more first computing devices, a processor, and a database amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Again, the limitations of “scanning, via one or more second computing devices, the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”, “a scanning device in communication with the processor, the scanning device being configured to scan the unique identifier and a location identifier in a region of a particular cabin on the cruise ship”, and “a second computing device scanning the unique identifier” are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the scanning of the unique identifier and location identifier is limited to execution by the second computing device/scanning device and further, that the application of the abstract idea of “tracking baggage” is limited to location monitoring (on the cruise ship) through the field of use of scanning identifiers.
Limitations which amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment do not meaningfully limit the claim.
“Retrieving, from a database operatively connected to the API data processor, unique record data corresponding to the unique baggage identifier of the first API payload”, “database for storage in connection with the unique record data”, and “stored within the database” of Claim 49 may also be interpreted as extra-solution activity of data storage and retrieval which is a computer function that the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional – storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
“Receiving, at an (application programming interface) API data processor associated with a cloud-based computing platform, a first API payload transmitted by a first computing device, wherein the first API payload comprises a unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage” and “[receiving] at the API data processor in response to a second computing device [scanning the unique identifier], a second API payload transmitted by the second computing device” are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of business relations relates to activities executed in an API environment (execution by the API data processor receiving API payloads) and further, limiting the abstract idea of business relations to specifically data related to the unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage.
None of the steps/functions of Claims 30, 48, and 49 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, extra-solution activity, and/or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination.
The additional elements of Claims 30, 48, and 49 amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, extra-solution activity, and/or field of use. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements (representing mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, extra-solution activity, and/or field of use) cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claims. Accordingly, Claims 30, 48, and 49 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 31-33, 37, 40, 43-44, and 46 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above.
Claim 34 further specifies “sending a message” which narrows the abstract idea identified above. Claim 34 also recites an additional element of a mobile device which is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of business relations relates to activities executed in a mobile device environment as the message sent to the user associated with the baggage is sent to the mobile device of the user.
Claim 35 further specifies wherein the unique baggage identifier may be a bag tag, an RFID, or a BLE beacon and Claim 36 further specifies where the location identifier may be a bar code or a GPS module. The elements are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying what technological environment/embodiment the unique baggage identifier and location identifier are limited to.
Claim 38 and 39 add an additional element of a reservation system from which data is retrieved from. The limitation may be interpreted as extra-solution activity of data retrieval which is a computer function that the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional – storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 41 recites additional elements of the one or more second computing devices are one or more hand held scanning devices and the scanning may be performed by a scanning app running on a mobile communications device. Such limitations are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the scanning of the unique identifier and location identifier is limited to execution by the second computing device which may be a hand held scanning device and/or a scanning app on a mobile communications device.
Claim 42 further specifies “generating a baggage tag” which narrows the abstract idea identified above. Claim 42 also recites an additional element of a mobile communications device which is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of business relations relates to activities executed in a mobile device environment as the baggage tag sent to a user is sent to the mobile communications device of the user.
Claim 45 further specifies “in response… issuing” and Claim 47 further specifies “determining” and “in response” which narrows the abstract idea identified above. Claim 45 and 47 also recite an additional element of a mobile device and a mobile application stored on the mobile device which are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of business relations relates to activities executed in a mobile device environment as the notification/message sent to a user is sent to the mobile device of the user (via the mobile app).
Thus, taken alone and when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in dependent claims 31-47 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Claims 30-49 are ineligible.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 30-39, 41, and 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zur (US2019/0188431) in view of Gupta et al. (US2013/0234849) in view of Wiater (US2005/0258231).
As per independent Claim 30,
Zur teaches a method of tracking baggage, comprising the steps of:
for an item of baggage, generating, via one or more first computing devices, a unique baggage identifier and associating the unique baggage identifier with a unique record data to form a unique identifier (para. 57 operating environment where the system includes a central server connected to one or more computers; Examiner interpreting the claim number as the unique baggage identifier and the barcode identifier as the unique identifier; para. 23 and figure 5-6 where the tag number/claim number and barcode identifier are distinct for each piece of luggage associated with a particular customer; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 system generates the claim ticket number and where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket; para. 26 “guest data record to determine whether the scanned bar codes for the room matches with the guest room specified in the guest registration”)
generating, via the one or more first computing devices, a baggage message including the associated unique identifier and a status of the item of baggage (para. 2 where the barcode identifier can be used as a data element in a data record; para. 26 where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 guest data record; para. 36-38 data record associated with guest contains the number of luggage identifier numbers, guest room, guest room identifier and para. 46 data record includes identity of remote device to have bellman associated with luggage tags in order to confirm current status; para. 48-50 where after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” state” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state”)
generating, via the one or more first computing devices, a baggage tag including the unique identifier and affixing the baggage tag to the item of baggage (para. 26 where the barcoded tag is attached to each piece of luggage or a bar code label printing device generates the bar code label for attachment to the luggage)
scanning, via one or more second computing devices, the unique identifier and a location identifier in the region of a particular cabin (see Zur para. 23-24 each bellman equipped with a mobile scanner device/device with a camera to capture codes; para. 25 “guest rooms and storage locations may also be bar-coded and scanned…may also be tagged using RFID devices or other location beacons”; para. 26 where when luggage is delivered to a room, the luggage tags are scanned as are the barcodes for the room)
updating, via the one or more first computing devices, the baggage message with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprises an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier (see Zur para. 26 luggage tags and bar code are scanned when the luggage is stored, this data is stored in the data record associated with the guest so that the current location of the pieces of luggage can be tracked; para. 48-50 where in para. 49 after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” states” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state” and in para. 50 the database updated with the new location of the luggage)
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
[the updated status] is retrievable upon request (see Gupta para. 57 via application on mobile device, request current status of passenger’s baggage and the system may provide the information)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur teaches arrival and departure at a hotel (para. 2).
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of a cruise ship:
Particular cabin on the cruise ship (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 passenger who has traveled on a cruise ship)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the particular cabin on the cruise ship of Wiater for the particular cabin (of a hotel) of Zur. Both are rooms in which the passenger and their baggage was placed. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 31,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
Receiving a request for the updated status of the item of baggage; and in response to the request, outputting the updated status (see Gupta para. 57 via application on mobile device, request current status of passenger’s baggage and the system may provide the information)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
As per dependent Claim 32,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
Wherein the request is issued by a user (see Gupta para. 57 via application on mobile device, request current status of passenger’s baggage and the system may provide the information)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches:
a cruise operator (para. 16 ship’s crew or authorized agent; para. 25 outside party (entity that operates the cruise ship) can track location of vehicle which is transporting the baggage)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the cruise operator of Wiater for the user of Gupta. Both are users interested in the location/status of the baggage. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 33,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur teaches:
comprising validating the unique identifier against the baggage message to enable check-in of the baggage (see Zur para. 36-46 specifically para. 43 where the assignment message contains the set of luggage identifiers, para. 45 where the bellman scans the luggage tags and checks the scanned tags against the data record for the job, and para. 46 the data record is updated to have the bellman associated with the luggage tags in order to confirm current status)
As per dependent Claim 34,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur teaches in para. 23 guest’s mobile device includes a web interface with mobile application.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
sending a message to a mobile device associated with the baggage notifying that the baggage has been delivered to the storage area (see Gupta para. 15-16 where baggage is continuously tracked in real-time from when a passenger checks in to when they pick up the baggage; para. 17-18 where the baggage has a unique barcode or RFID tag; para. 21-24 baggage code readers are used to determine the arrival and departure of baggage from a location; para. 25-26 where a notification is sent to a mobile application run on the device carried by the recipient and the notification indicates the location at which the baggage has arrived; fig. 3 and para. 31 where the passenger may set notifications to be provided when the baggage is arriving at or departing from a baggage storage area; para. 47 where the alerts may be triggered by an associated predetermined time period)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of a cruise ship:
the particular cabin (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 passenger who has traveled on a cruise ship)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the particular cabin of Wiater for the storage area of Gupta. Both are locations where the user’s baggage is stored. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 35,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the unique baggage identifier is a bag tag, an RFID or a BLE beacon (para. 27 where the barcode affixed to the luggage may also be a luggage tag with an RFID device; para. 26 where the barcoded tag is attached to each piece of luggage or a bar code label printing device generates the bar code label for attachment to the luggage)
As per dependent Claim 36,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the location identifier is a bar code or a GPS module (see Zur para. 25 “guest rooms and storage locations may also be bar-coded and scanned…may also be tagged using RFID devices or other location beacons”)
As per dependent Claim 37,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 36.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the location information includes a location code, a location text descriptor, or GPS/latitude and longitude coordinates (see Zur para. 26 system runs logical test to see if scanned room barcode matches registered guest room barcode (“location code”); para. 47-50 where in para. 47 the system receives the scanned code/RFID/beacon and compares the information against a set of stored room number values associated with a set of corresponding identifiers or location values)
As per dependent Claim 38,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the unique record data is retrieved from a reservation system (para. 23 and figure 5-6 where the tag number/claim number and barcode identifier are distinct for each piece of luggage associated with a particular customer; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket; para. 26 “guest data record to determine whether the scanned bar codes for the room matches with the guest room specified in the guest registration”)
As per dependent Claim 39,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 38.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the unique record data comprises data retrieved from a name record stored in the reservation system (para. 23 and figure 5-6 where the tag number/claim number and barcode identifier are distinct for each piece of luggage associated with a particular customer; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket; para. 26 “guest data record to determine whether the scanned bar codes for the room matches with the guest room specified in the guest registration”)
As per dependent Claim 41,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
wherein the one or more second computing devices are one or more hand held scanning devices (see Zur para. 23-24 each bellman equipped with a mobile scanner device/device with a camera to capture codes; para. 25 “guest rooms and storage locations may also be bar-coded and scanned…may also be tagged using RFID devices or other location beacons”; para. 26 where when luggage is delivered to a room, the luggage tags are scanned as are the barcodes for the room)
preferably wherein scanning the unique identifier and the location identifier is performed by a scanning app running on a mobile communications device (para. 25 luggage tags are electronically scanned and inputted into the system using the mobile application; see also para. 27, 34)
As per dependent Claim 43,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
wherein updating the baggage message comprises generating and saving a new baggage message, the new baggage message having a different baggage status from the previous baggage message (see Zur para. 48-50 where after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” state” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state”)
As per dependent Claim 44,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
determining that all baggage, each item of baggage associated with a unique identifier, has been delivered to a given area (see Gupta para. 15-16 where baggage is continuously tracked in real-time from when a passenger checks in to when they pick up the baggage; para. 17-18 where the baggage has a unique barcode or RFID tag; para. 21-24 baggage code readers are used to determine the arrival and departure of baggage from a location; para. 25-26 where a notification is sent to a mobile application run on the device carried by the recipient and the notification indicates the location at which the baggage has arrived; fig. 3 and para. 31 where the passenger may set notifications to be provided when the baggage is arriving at or departing from a baggage storage area; para. 47 where the alerts may be triggered by an associated predetermined time period)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of a cruise ship:
given area in the cruise ship (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 baggage may be stored in a secured area or a cruise ship terminal)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the given area in the cruise ship of Wiater for the given area of Gupta. Both are locations where the user’s baggage is delivered/stored. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 45,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 44.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
in response to determining that all baggage has been delivered to the given area, issuing a notification via a mobile application stored on a mobile device that the item of baggage has been delivered to the storage area (see Gupta para. 15-16 where baggage is continuously tracked in real-time from when a passenger checks in to when they pick up the baggage; para. 17-18 where the baggage has a unique barcode or RFID tag; para. 21-24 baggage code readers are used to determine the arrival and departure of baggage from a location; para. 25-26 where a notification is sent to a mobile application run on the device carried by the recipient and the notification indicates the location at which the baggage has arrived; fig. 3 and para. 31 where the passenger may set notifications to be provided when the baggage is arriving at or departing from a baggage storage area; para. 47 where the alerts may be triggered by an associated predetermined time period)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of a cruise ship:
given area in the cruise ship (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 baggage may be stored in a secured area or a cruise ship terminal)
particular cabin (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-15 passenger who has traveled on a cruise ship)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the given area in the cruise ship of Wiater for the given area of Gupta and further, the substitution of the particular cabin of Wiater for the storage area of Gupta. The given area and particular cabin/storage area are all locations where the user’s baggage is delivered/stored. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 46,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur further teaches:
prior to passenger leaving: scanning the unique identifier; and updating the baggage message with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprises an indication of an updated location of the item of baggage (para. 26 where upon departure of the guest, the bellman moves the luggage from the guest room to the reception area; para. 52 where upon guest check out, the bellman reports to the guest’s room and scans the luggage at the room and places it on the cart; and figure 4A-4C where in 4A when the guest is leaving, a bellman arrives at the guest’s room to receive the luggage, the bellman may store the luggage (which requires scanning and the system updates the luggage location in fig. 4B) or in fig. 4C scans all luggage and delivers luggage to the guest and the record is updated as completed; see also para. 47-50)
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of the cruise ship:
prior to arrival of the cruise ship at a destination port: (para. 15 passenger who has traveled on a cruise ship and who is traveling from the seaport where the cruise ship has docked to another destination; para. 16 on the night before the final debarkation, the baggage to be processed is collected from the passengers and stored in a secured area; see also para. 35)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the prior to arrival of the cruise ship at a destination port of Wiater for the prior to the passenger leaving of Zur. Both are instances in which the passenger is leaving a location (cruise ship or hotel) for another and as a result, their baggage needs to be collected to be transported. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 47,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
on unloading of baggage: determining that all baggage from the given area, each item of baggage associated with a unique identifier, have been unloaded; and in response to determining that all baggage from the given area has been unloaded, sending a message to a mobile device associated with the baggage via a mobile application stored on the mobile device including a notification of where to collect the baggage (para. 21-24 baggage code readers are used to determine the arrival and departure of baggage from a location; para. 25-26 where a notification is sent to a mobile application run on the device carried by the recipient and the notification indicates the location at which the baggage has departed; fig. 3 and para. 31 where the passenger may set notifications to be provided when the baggage is arriving at the baggage pickup area; figure 7D and para. 46 where a notification is issued when the baggage has arrived at the baggage pickup area and the location of the baggage “Carousel 7”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of the cruise ship/port:
on unloading of baggage at a port (para. 16 where the baggage is delivered to the cruise ship terminal and once the passenger has disembarked the ship and arrived in the cruise ship terminal, the passenger takes possession of his or her baggage and can exit the seaport)
given area in the cruise ship (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 baggage may be stored in a secured area or a cruise ship terminal)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the given area in the cruise ship of Wiater for the given area of Gupta. Both are locations where the user’s baggage is stored. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per independent Claim 48,
Zur teaches a system for tracking baggage, comprising:
a processor adapted to: generate a unique baggage identifier and associate the unique baggage identifier with a unique record data to form a unique identifier (para. 57 operating environment where the system includes a central server connected to one or more computers; para. 68 processors; Examiner interpreting the claim number as the unique baggage identifier and the barcode identifier as the unique identifier; para. 23 and figure 5-6 where the tag number/claim number and barcode identifier are distinct for each piece of luggage associated with a particular customer; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 system generates the claim ticket number and where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket; para. 26 “guest data record to determine whether the scanned bar codes for the room matches with the guest room specified in the guest registration”)
generate a baggage message including the associated unique identifier and a status of the item of baggage (para. 2 where the barcode identifier can be used as a data element in a data record; para. 26 where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 guest data record; para. 36-38 data record associated with guest contains the number of luggage identifier numbers, guest room, guest room identifier and para. 46 data record includes identity of remote device to have bellman associated with luggage tags in order to confirm current status; para. 48-50 where after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” state” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state”)
generate a baggage tag including the unique identifier for affixing the baggage tag to the item of baggage (para. 26 where the barcoded tag is attached to each piece of luggage or a bar code label printing device generates the bar code label for attachment to the luggage)
a scanning device in communication with the processor, the scanning device being configured to scan the unique identifier and a location identifier in the region of a particular cabin (see Zur para. 23-24 each bellman equipped with a mobile scanner device/device with a camera to capture codes; para. 25 “guest rooms and storage locations may also be bar-coded and scanned…may also be tagged using RFID devices or other location beacons”; para. 26 where when luggage is delivered to a room, the luggage tags are scanned as are the barcodes for the room)
wherein the processor is further adapted to update the baggage message with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprising an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier (see Zur para. 26 luggage tags and bar code are scanned when the luggage is stored, this data is stored in the data record associated with the guest so that the current location of the pieces of luggage can be tracked; para. 48-50 where in para. 49 after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” states” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state” and in para. 50 the database updated with the new location of the luggage)
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
[the updated status] being retrievable upon request (see Gupta para. 57 via application on mobile device, request current status of passenger’s baggage and the system may provide the information)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur teaches arrival and departure at a hotel (para. 2).
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Wiater teaches the context of a cruise ship:
Particular cabin on the cruise ship (para. 34 “passenger’s cabins”; para. 14-16 passenger who has traveled on a cruise ship)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur/Gupta invention with Wiater with the motivation of increasing passenger convenience (see para. 3-4 “Baggage can impose a number of physical constraints and inconveniences on a cruise ship passenger…the system and method of the invention eliminate much of the inconvenience and delay associated with traveling back home after a cruise”).
Additionally, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the particular cabin on the cruise ship of Wiater for the particular cabin (of a hotel) of Zur. Both are rooms in which the passenger and their baggage was placed. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zur (US2019/0188431) in view of Gupta et al. (US2013/0234849) in view of Wiater (US2005/0258231) as applied to claim 30 above, further in view of Dadyala (US2015/0360258).
As per dependent Claim 40,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur/Gupta/Wiater does not teach, but Dadyala teaches:
wherein the item of baggage is stored in the bag message as being unknown (para. 33 and 40 where the security status/risk level is provided on the tag of the baggage and where a piece of baggage is designated unknown and routed according to its high-risk status; para. 7 and 28 where the tag stores information relating to the item of baggage)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Dadyala with the motivation of increasing safety and efficiency of baggage checking. See para. 3-4.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zur (US2019/0188431) in view of Gupta et al. (US2013/0234849) in view of Wiater (US2005/0258231) as applied to claim 30 above, further in view of Kezzou et al. (US2010/0293386).
As per dependent Claim 42,
Zur/Gupta/Wiater teaches the method according to claim 30.
Zur/Gupta/Wiater does not teach, but Kezzou teaches:
wherein generating a baggage tag comprises generating the baggage tag electronically and sending the baggage tag electronically to a mobile communications device (figure 2 and para. 20 where the bag tag is stored on the hand held device which may be a mobile telephone; figure 3 and para. 33 where the customer uses the hand held device to check in and the departure control system or DCS generates and downloads the bag tags)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Kezzou with the motivation of reducing costs (para. 24 “IT and staff cost savings are made”) and “to provide an improved distribution and printing facility for travel documents, which does not rely on an expensive centralized IT infrastructure” (para. 9).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zur (US2019/0188431) in view of Gupta et al. (US2013/0234849) in view of Tamjidi et al. (US2019/0332451).
As per independent Claim 49,
Zur teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a data processor, a first data packet transmitted by a first computing device, wherein the first data packet comprises a unique baggage identifier corresponding to an item of baggage (para. 68 “different steps of the process can be executed by one or more computers… in a manner so that they operate together to execute the process steps” a user’s computer (“first computing device”) may transmit one or more data packets (“unique baggage identifier”) to a server (“data processor”) which is connected to where the database is stored and the server can interpret the data packets; para. 61 a data message can be a data packet; para. 57-58 system maintains data structures that stores identity of guest, identifiers on the luggage tags, guest room number and the server can receive data items from the remote device and store them in the data structures; para. 26 generate the luggage claim ticket number (“unique baggage identifier”) and where a claim number is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest)
retrieving, from a database operatively connected to the data processor, unique record data corresponding to the unique baggage identifier of the first data packet (para. 34 server connected to a database; para. 68 user’s computer may transmit one or more data packets to a server which is connected to where the database is stored and the server can receive/interpret the data packets in order to extract database query information to derive the desired result of the query; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 where the claim number is stored in a data record associated with the guest’s stay or claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket)
generating, via the data processor, a unique identifier associated with the unique baggage identifier and the unique record data (Examiner interpreting the claim number as the unique baggage identifier and the barcode identifier as the unique identifier; para. 23 and figure 5-6 where the tag number/claim number and barcode identifier are distinct for each piece of luggage associated with a particular customer; para. 25 claim tickets with barcodes associated with guest name, room number, luggage descriptions; para. 26 system generates the claim ticket number and where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 where the code is generated and stored upon generation of the guest data record and that code is used to generate the barcode that is printed on the claim ticket; para. 26 “guest data record to determine whether the scanned bar codes for the room matches with the guest room specified in the guest registration”; para. 57 luggage tag generator utilizes logic on the server to generate an identifier for a piece of luggage)
a baggage message comprising the unique identifier and a status of the item of baggage; transmitting the baggage message to the database for storage in connection with the unique record data (para. 2 where the barcode identifier can be used as a data element in a data record; para. 26 where a claim number and bar code of the label is stored in one or more data records associated with the registered guest; para. 29 guest data record; para. 36-38 data record associated with guest contains the number of luggage identifier numbers, guest room, guest room identifier and para. 46 data record includes identity of remote device to have bellman associated with luggage tags in order to confirm current status; para. 48-50 where after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” state” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state”)
receiving, at the data processor in response to a second computing device scanning the unique identifier, a second data packet transmitted by the second computing device comprising the unique identifier and a location identifier (see Zur para. 68 as cited above; para. 23-24 each bellman equipped with a mobile scanner device/device with a camera to capture codes; para. 25 “guest rooms and storage locations may also be bar-coded and scanned…may also be tagged using RFID devices or other location beacons”; para. 26 where when luggage is delivered to a room, the luggage tags are scanned as are the barcodes for the room; also in para. 26 code and data transmitted to a central server that stores into one or more data records these data items, scanned information transmitted to server)
updating, via the data processor, the baggage message stored within the database with an updated status of the item of baggage, wherein the updated status comprises an indication of a location of the item of baggage based on the location identifier (see Zur para. 26 luggage tags and bar code are scanned when the luggage is stored, this data is stored in the data record associated with the guest so that the current location of the pieces of luggage can be tracked; para. 48-50 where in para. 49 after the bellman delivers the luggage to the correct room, “a stored status flag associated with the data record for that identifier is changed to a “delivered” states” or “the server updates the data records in the database associated with the luggage to a “delivered” state” and in para. 50 the database updated with the new location of the luggage)
Zur does not teach, but Gupta teaches:
[the updated status] being retrievable upon request (see Gupta para. 57 via application on mobile device, request current status of passenger’s baggage and the system may provide the information)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Gupta with the motivation of increasing efficiency by allowing baggage to be continuously tracked in real time (para. 15) and the passenger is kept apprised of the location in real time as well (para. 26). See also para. 2-5 where the invention prevents mistakes, delays, and theft.
Zur/Gupta does not teach, but Tamjidi teaches:
an (application programming interface) API data processor associated with a cloud-based computing platform (para. 3-4, 23 cloud computing; para. 5 data exchange between various devices of the network where REST web services enable client devices to access server side resources, REST API servers receive and respond to client requests; para. 33 and 43 processors)
API payload (para. 36 and 38 REST API and server receives multiple requested items (“payload”) which the server processes; para. 39, 46, 57 payload)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Zur invention with Tamjidi with the motivation of increasing efficiency and cost/computing resource savings.
See para. 3 “In particular, a cloud computing infrastructure allows users, such as individuals and/or enterprises, to access a shared pool of computing resources, such as servers, storage devices, networks, applications, and/or other computing based services. By doing so, users are able to access computing resources on demand that are located at remote locations, which resources may be used to perform a variety computing functions (e.g., storing and/or processing large quantities of computing data). For enterprise and other organization users, cloud computing provides flexibility in accessing cloud computing resources without accruing large up-front costs, such as purchasing expensive network equipment or investing large amounts of time in establishing a private network infrastructure. Instead, by utilizing cloud computing resources, users are able redirect their resources to focus on their enterprise's core functions.” See also para. 8.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the API data processor and API payload of Tamjidi for the data processor and data packet of Zur. Both are the technical arrangement through which data is transmitted across devices. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Krasko et al. (US2017/0004444) teaches a database linking a unique identifier (GUID) with a bag, passenger, and itinerary.
Draghici et al. (US2016/0381499) teaches a traveler tracking their luggage using a mobile device and a locator device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
