DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 20 May 2026.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 18, and 19 have been amended.
The 112 (b) rejection for claims 4-7, 11, 18, and 19 has been overcome by amendments.
Claims 36 and 37 have been added.
Claims 1-20, 36, and 37 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “In particular, the amended claims do not involve the commercial interactions of people or certain methods of organizing human activity but rather to electronically tracking and notifying on delay of physical objects, namely baggage. Furthermore, it is submitted that the claim recites additional elements that at least integrate the claim features into a practical application and therefore are patent eligible at least under step 2A prong 2. Should the Examiner disagree, it is also submitted that under step 2B the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended claim 1 to state, “a. a processor configured to: i. retrieve delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger; and ii. send a first notification to a mobile and/or a user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination; wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, Applicant’s claims have recited retrieving delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive later than a passenger, and sending a notification to the passenger informing them of the delay, based on conditions related to the location of the transport of the passenger or the location of the passenger. As such, it is noted that the claims encompass identifying that a luggage has been mishandled and will be delivered to a user at a destination at a different time; which is the performance of commercial activities (e.g. airlines providing a service of informing travelers of lost/misplaced luggage), and managing human behavior/relationships (tracking luggage). Notably, the amendment directed towards defining the conditions for sending the notification, merely sets forth a ruleset used to send a notification, which does not change the recited abstract idea identified here. Thus, the Applicant’s claim are found to recite elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “the claim recites additional elements that at least integrate the claim features into a practical application,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Applicant’s argument fails to identify any element which they view integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application, in accordance with the rules set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), and instead, they have merely asserted that some additional, but unidentified, element in the claims performs such integration; which is deemed a conclusory argument. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 8 and 9 of their response, “On page 5, the Updated Guidelines describes ‘Commercial or Legal Interactions’ as ‘subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.’ The present claims do not recite features covering ‘agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations’ nor features covering ‘social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.’ Instead, the claim addresses a technical problem in transportation and logistics systems: accurately determining and notifying when an item (e.g., baggage or cargo) and its associated passenger will arrive at different times. Stated differently, the claims improve the functioning of computerized notification systems. Exemplary claim 1 relates to various electronic and software components including a processor and software for retrieve of real-time delay data and evaluate location-based conditions, which are not activities humans can practically perform mentally or administratively at scale. Unlike ‘commercial interaction’ cases (e.g., hedging, intermediated settlement), the claim does not govern economic behavior or transactional relationships between entities. Instead of commercial interactions, the claims focus on machine-based data retrieval, automated evaluation of location-dependent criteria, and condition-triggered system notifications. Furthermore, the notifications in claim 1 are not simply presenting information but rather are generated and transmitted only after performing specific processing steps, including 1) retrieving delayed item data, and 2) evaluating predetermined conditions tied to real-world locations to determine that the notification needs to be sent. Therefore, the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of Commercial or Legal Interactions as alleged.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The present claims do not recite features covering ‘agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations’ nor features covering ‘social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions,’” the Examiner is not persuaded. As noted and discussed above, the claim elements encompass identifying that a luggage has been mishandled and will be delivered to a user at a destination at a different time; which is the performance of commercial activities (e.g. airlines providing a service of informing travelers of lost/misplaced luggage), and managing human behavior/relationships (tracking luggage). It is noted that the Applicant’s argument fails to address these descriptions, or provide reasoning as to why the claims don’t recite elements that fall into these categories and sub-categories, and as such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “the claim addresses a technical problem in transportation and logistics systems: accurately determining and notifying when an item (e.g., baggage or cargo) and its associated passenger will arrive at different times,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the Examiner notes that the claims do not receive any element directed towards the technical aspects of providing notifications (i.e. how a notification is sent); and instead, merely encompass the element of providing the notification to a user, which is not a technological improvement, but instead a part of the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant’s claims fail to recite elements that encompass improving computers or technology, but instead, merely recite improvements in the abstract idea itself. Further, it is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant’s specification fails to set forth technical details that describe how sending notifications to a user is an improvement in technology, nor has the Applicant’s argument provided any evidence of such; thus, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “Exemplary claim 1 relates to various electronic and software components including a processor and software for retrieve of real-time delay data and evaluate location-based conditions, which are not activities humans can practically perform mentally or administratively at scale,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the previous and current rejection did not state that the claims recited a “Mental Process” thus the Applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be performed mentally is deemed not reflective of the actual rejection given, thus it is not persuasive at showing the rejection was in error. Additionally, the Applicant’s argument with regards to, “administratively at scale,” it is noted that the claims are directed towards a single passenger and single item, and not anything “at scale,” and as such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not persuasive as it is not reflective of the claimed invention. Additionally, with regards to the Applicant’s argument regarding the use of a processor and memory, it is noted that these elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are deemed to merely recite, “apply it.” MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "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).” (Emphasis added). In this case, merely invoking the use of a general purpose computer to carry out the abstract idea, does not integrate it into a practical application, or prevent it from reciting an abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2025 with respect Park disclosing sending notifications when conditions have been met have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 of their response, “However, Park fails to show or suggest determining that ‘one or more predetermined conditions are met’ that include ‘wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger,’ as set forth in amended claim 1. In contrast to relying on a location of a transport means or a location of a passenger as claimed, Park merely discusses notifications based on the location of the bag itself using electronic tags on the baggage and a plurality of readers installed on one side of the conveyor. Stated differently, Park does not disclose or suggest any notification trigger that is dependent upon the physical location of the passenger or the transportation means, as set forth in claim 1. The notifications in Park are tied to baggage-handling events and reader recognitions, not to passenger-related or transport-location conditions. Accordingly, Park fails to show or suggest at least the above-referenced portion of claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. Notably, Park states in paragraph 81, “As described above, when the baggage is moving away from a destination route in an airport (e.g., a route to a gate where the passenger waits in the case of the destination airport or a route to an airplane used by the passenger in the case of the departure airport), the airport management server 100 may transmit a message indicating that the baggage has deviated from the destination route in the airport to the terminal 40 of the passenger. In this case, the passenger may immediately take action to prevent his or her baggage from being lost or stolen.” (Emphasis added). Park continues in paragraph 82, “For example, the airport management server 100 of the departure airport may locate the baggage in real time using the baggage data table and send a warning message to the administrator or transmit a warning message to the terminal 40 of the passenger when the baggage is not moved toward the airplane used by the passenger. Also, the airport management server 100 of the destination airport may locate the baggage in real time and send a warning message to the administrator or transmit a warning message to the terminal 40 of the passenger when the baggage deviates from the conveyor belt or is not moved toward a gate where the passenger waits.” (Emphasis added). Park continues in paragraph 86, “When the baggage arrives at the wrong airport before the passenger arrives at the destination airport, the airport management server 100 finds out that the baggage has been incorrectly delivered by referring to the baggage data table. The airport management server 100 transmits baggage misdelivery information to the baggage management server 200 for sharing and delivers baggage misdelivery notice information to the passenger as a text message or sends a notification linked to the application or homepage to enable the passenger to check the notification. In this way, the passenger can find out that his or her baggage has been misdelivered as soon as arriving at the destination airport. Accordingly, the misdelivered baggage can be rapidly and correctly handled, and it is possible to reduce the risk of losing the baggage.” (Emphasis added). Park also state sin paragraph 87, “Next, when the baggage arrives at the wrong airport after the passenger arrives at the destination airport and the airport management server 100 does not notify the passenger that the baggage has been incorrectly delivered, the passenger continues to wait at the airport where the baggage is not delivered and report the loss to the airline. To prevent such a situation, the airport management server 100 of the destination airport transmits baggage misdelivery notice information to the terminal 40 of the passenger and transmits baggage tracking request information to the baggage management server 200. The baggage tracking request information may include the passenger identification information, the baggage identification information, etc.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, Park has disclosed transmitting a misdelivery notice to the passengers mobile device when baggage has been determined to be misdelivered. It is further noted, as emphasized here, that the notification is send when conditions are met related to the passenger’s location (e.g. they are at the departure gate, arrive at the destination, passenger is waiting at the destination airport) and the location of the airplane (e.g. the baggage is being delivered in the wrong route from the planned plane). As such, Park has disclosed the new claim amendment, “wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger.” It is noted, that were the Applicant to specify the exact conditions they intend to be met, instead of one or more predetermined conditions that are related to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger, or specifying how the locations are determined and tied to the conditions, then the reference would need to be reevaluated. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
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.
Claim 37 is 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.
With respect to claim 37, the Applicant claims, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 21.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. First, the Examiner notes that claim 21 was canceled in a preliminary amended on 18 June 2025, and thus, it is unclear as to how this claim can depend on a cancelled claim. Notably, this would normally cause a “Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment” to be issued, instead of a Final Rejection; however, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will examine it under the interpretation provided in this rejection. Second, the Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for stating that it is, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. an article of manufacture) and seemingly an independent claim; however the claim goes on to state, “perform the method of claim 21,” which seems to indicate that it is a dependent claim of claim 21 (a seemingly method); thus it is unclear if this claim is a dependent claim of 21 with multiple statutory classes (not allowed), or if it is an independent claim that is further dependent on another claim (not allowed). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform: i. retrieving delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger; and ii. sending a first notification to a mobile and/or a user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination, wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger.” (That is, the text of the body of new claim 36, the only method claim currently pending).
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, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a. a processor configured to: i. retrieve delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger; and ii. send a first notification to a mobile and/or a user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination, wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger.
The limitations of retrieving delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger, sending a first notification to a user informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination, wherein the notification is sent when a predetermined condition is are met that is related to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the performance of commercial activities (business relations), and managing human behavior/relationships. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (processor, mobile device, user-accessible device), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, retrieving delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger, and sending a first notification to a user informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination when a condition related to the location of a transport or passenger is met; encompasses identifying that a luggage has been mishandled and will be delivered to a user at a destination at a different time; which is the performance of commercial activities (e.g. airlines providing a service of informing travelers of lost/misplaced luggage), and managing human behavior/relationships (tracking luggage). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processor, mobile device, user-accessible device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-20, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite retrieving delayed item data from a mishandled item database or a message comprising an event log; which encompasses tracking luggage, which is the performance of commercial activities, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 2 and 3). In addition, the claims further recite when a notification is sent, which merely narrows the field of use by defining the triggers for alerts to be provided to users, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 4-7). In addition, the claims recite the use of a database to collect location information, which merely encompasses using generic computer elements as tools to carry out the abstract idea, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 4, 5, and 6). In addition, the claims recite the collecting location information from a mobile device, which is deemed extrasolution activity of data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least page 28 lines 13-20 of the Applicant’s specification which describes collecting location information from a user’s mobile device at such a high level of generality, that one of ordinary skill would understand it to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a); which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite receiving passenger data prior to sending the notification, which further encompasses managing business relations, as this is merely retrieving passenger/customer contact information, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite communicating with a passenger/customer in their preferred language, which further encompasses managing business relations, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite the content of passenger data retrieved, including contact preferences of the passenger, which further encompasses managing business relations, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 10 and 11). In addition, the claims further recites the use of generic computer elements (mobile number, email, app, website, kiosk, electronic board) as tools to carry out the abstract idea and perform their ordinary functions, and thus merely reciting “apply it,” which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 10 and 11). In addition, the claims further recite receiving new scheduled data for mishandled luggage and providing it to the passenger/user, which further encompasses managing business relations, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 12, 15, and 18). In addition, the claims further recite sending notification the use informing them of the schedule; which further encompasses managing business relations, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 13, 14, 16, and 19). In addition, the claims further recite informing receiving new destination information from a user where an item can be shipped; which further encompasses managing business relations, and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite an item handling system for moving an item between an origin and a destination according to a first scheduled route which departs the origin at a first predetermined departure time, wherein the system comprises: b. a processor configured to: i. determine whether the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route; ii. determine the destination for the item; iii. determine a new, second, scheduled route between the origin and the determined destination wherein the second scheduled route departs the origin at a second predetermined time which is after the first predetermined time; iv. process the item according to the second scheduled route; and v. send delayed item data indicating that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination. In this case, determining whether the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route, determining the destination for the item, determining a new scheduled route between the origin and the determined destination wherein the second scheduled route departs the origin at a second predetermined time which is after the first predetermined time, processing the item according to the second scheduled route, and sending delayed item data indicating that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination; which further encompasses identifying delayed luggage, determining a new scheduled delivery of the luggage, information a passenger of the delay the new schedule, and processing the luggage delivery; which is the management of business relations; and thus, elements that fall in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 20). In addition, the claims recite the use of generic computer and machine elements (an item handling system for moving items, processor) as tools used to carry out the abstract idea and perform their ordinary function; which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-20, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0177158 A1) (hereinafter Park).
With respect to claims 1, 36, and 37, Park teaches:
A processor configured to: i. retrieve delayed item data indicating that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger (See at least paragraphs 17-19, 61, 62, 68, 71-73, 75, 79, 80, and 81 which describe retrieving baggage tracking information, including misdelivery and lost baggage information, and wherein the information indicates that the item will arrive at the planned destination later than the passenger).
ii. send a first notification to a mobile and/or a user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination (See at least paragraphs 10, 17, 18, 40, 49-51, 53, 67, 68, 71-76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, and 87 which describe sending a notification to a passenger’s mobile device or computer, wherein the notification informs the passenger of the delayed delivery and the ETA to the destination).
Wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of a transportation means transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger (See at least paragraphs 80, 81, 82, 86, and 87 which describe transmitting notifications to inform passengers that their baggage has been or in the process of being misdelivered, wherein the notification is sent based on conditions, such as the passengers location and plane’s location).
With respect to claim 2, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the delayed item data is retrieved from a database comprising data of one or more mishandled items at the origin, wherein the item is one of the one or more mishandled items (See at least paragraphs 12, 13-16, 19, 42, 43, 60-62, 71-73, 79, and 80 which describe storing baggage tracking information in a database, wherein the information includes misdelivery information, and wherein misdelivery information can include mishandled items at the origin airport).
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the delayed item data is retrieved via a message sent to the system comprising an event log indicating mishandling of the item (See at least paragraphs 12, 13-16, 19, 42, 43, 60-62, 71-73, 79, and 80 which describe storing baggage tracking information in a database, wherein the information includes misdelivery information, wherein misdelivery information can include mishandled items at the origin airport, and wherein messages are sent to the system regarding the delayed item from systems and readers).
With respect to claim 4, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, and wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined conditions relate to a location of an aircraft, train or a vessel transporting the passenger, and/or a location of the passenger, and the notification is sent upon or after the passenger exits an aircraft, train, or a vessel transporting the passenger (See at least paragraphs 17, 18, 51, 53, 34, 35, 41-74, 76, 78, 79, 80-84, 86, and 87 which describe alerting passengers of misdelivered, lost or mishandled baggage when conditions are met, including whether the scheduled flight has departed or not, arrived at the destination or not, or is midflight, and wherein it can be sent when the passenger departs the plane at the destination).
With respect to claim 8, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to retrieve passenger data prior to sending the notification (See at least paragraphs 10, 40, 49, 50, 56, 60-62, 78, 90, 91, 92 and 94 which describe retrieving passenger data prior to sending the notification, including their preferences and contact means).
With respect to claim 9, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein at least a part of the notification is in a language preferred by the passenger, wherein the language is a user-specified preferred language included in the passenger data, or an official language of a country of the user's nationality or residency according to the passenger data (See at least paragraph 104 which describe using a user preferred language to communicate with the passenger).
With respect to claim 10, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the passenger data comprises at least one of: a mobile number, user email, and, app or website account associated with the passenger, and the notification is sent to the mobile device associated with at least one of: the mobile number, user email, and, app or website account associated with the passenger (See at least paragraphs 10, 40, 53, 77, 80, 86, 94, 96, 112, 128, 126 which describe passengers checking in and registering baggage for tracking, wherein the user information used includes an account, email and number to text, and wherein notifications are sent to the user’s contact information).
With respect to claim 12, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to: iii. retrieve a new scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the destination, the new scheduled arrival time being later than the original scheduled arrival time (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time).
With respect to claim 15, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the first notification further comprises information relating to the new scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the destination (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, and wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger).
With respect to claim 18, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 15 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the first notification or second notification further comprises information relating to a scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the further destination (See at least paragraphs (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, and wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger).
With respect to claim 19, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 15 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to: v. send a third notification to the mobile and/or the user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the second notification comprising information relating to the new scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the further destination (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger, and wherein the new updates can be sent periodically).
With respect to claim 16, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to: iv. send a second notification to the mobile and/or the user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the second notification comprising information relating to the new scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the destination (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger, and wherein the new updates can be sent periodically).
With respect to claim 13, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to send the first notification to the mobile and/or the user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item will arrive at the destination later than the passenger (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, and wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger).
With respect to claim 17, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to: v. receive a further destination information, comprising an address to which the item to be transported from the destination, from the user via the mobile and/or the user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user (See at least paragraphs 19, 90-92, 97, 116, and 118 which describe a passenger, using their mobile device, providing a delivery address they wish to have mishandled baggage delivered to when re-routed to them).
With respect to claim 20, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Further comprising an item handling system for moving an item between an origin and a destination according to a first scheduled route which departs the origin at a first predetermined departure time (See at least paragraphs 10, 12-16, 19, 40, 42, 45, 60, 68, and 71-74 which describe a baggage handling system for conveying baggage to a passengers destination, wherein the system includes conveyor belts for moving baggage through an airport, and flights to travel from an origin airport to destination airport).
Wherein the system comprises: b. a processor configured to: i. determine whether the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route (See at least paragraphs 17-19, 61, 62, 68, 71-73, 75, 79, 80, and 81 which describe retrieving baggage tracking information, including misdelivery and lost baggage information, and wherein the information indicates the item has missed it's departure time).
ii. determine the destination for the item (See at least paragraphs 13-19, 40, 45, 53, 61, 62, 68, 71-76, 78, 79, 8082, 83, 84, and 90 which describe identifying mishandled or misdelivered baggage, and determining its correct destination and current destination).
iii. determine a new, second, scheduled route between the origin and the determined destination wherein the second scheduled route departs the origin at a second predetermined time which is after the first predetermined time; iv. process the item according to the second scheduled route; and v. send delayed item data indicating that the item and the passenger will arrive at different arrival times at the destination (See at least paragraphs 10, 19, 53, 74, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, and 93 which describe determining a new scheduled arrival time and route to the passenger’s destination for the misdelivered baggage, wherein the time is later than the original scheduled time, wherein the new scheduled arrival time is provided to the passenger, and wherein the new updates can be sent periodically).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 4 as stated above, and further in view of Ananda (US 2004/0199403 A1) (hereinafter Ananda).
With respect to claim 5, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the aircraft, train or vessel arrives at the destination (See at least paragraphs 17, 18, 51, 53, 34, 35, 41-74, 76, 78, 79, 80-84, 86, and 87 which describe alerting passengers of misdelivered, lost or mishandled baggage when conditions are met, including whether the scheduled flight has departed or not, arrived at the destination or not, or is midflight, and wherein it can be sent when the passenger departs the plane at the destination).
Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Park does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ananda teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the aircraft, train or vessel arrives at the destination, wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel is determined from a real-time database, wherein the real-time database is a flight information database (FLIFO), or live train or vessel departure and arrival database (See at least paragraphs 32, 34, 35, 36, 46, and 55 which describe sending notifications to passengers regarding their baggage, wherein the notification is sent when the aircraft arrives at the destination, and the location of the aircraft and passengers are determined from a live database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of sending notifications to passengers regarding their baggage, wherein the notification is sent when the aircraft arrives at the destination, and the location of the aircraft and passengers are determined from a live database of Ananda. By using a live database of plane and passenger trips, including their locations, a tracking service would predictably be able to inform passengers the status of their baggage when they arrive at their destination or before they depart from a location, thus providing them opportunities to address issues with the baggage or plan for delays.
With respect to claim 6, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the passenger exits an aircraft train, or vessel transporting the passenger, preferably wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel, and/or the passenger is determined from a real-time database, preferably wherein the real-time database is a flight information database (FLIFO), or live train or vessel departure and arrival database, and preferably wherein the location of the passenger is determined from location data retrieved from a mobile device associated with the passenger (See at least paragraphs 17, 18, 51, 53, 34, 35, 41-74, 76, 78, 79, 80-84, 86, and 87 which describe alerting passengers of misdelivered, lost or mishandled baggage when conditions are met, including whether the scheduled flight has departed or not, arrived at the destination or not, or is midflight, and wherein it can be sent when the passenger departs the plane at the destination).
Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Park does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ananda teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the passenger exits an aircraft train, or vessel transporting the passenger, wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel, and/or the passenger is determined from a real-time database, preferably wherein the real-time database is a flight information database (FLIFO), or live train or vessel departure and arrival database, and wherein the location of the passenger is determined from location data retrieved from a mobile device associated with the passenger (See at least paragraphs 32, 34, 35, 36, 46, and 55 which describe sending notifications to passengers regarding their baggage, wherein the notification is sent when the aircraft arrives at the destination, and the location of the aircraft and passengers are determined from a live database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of sending notifications to passengers regarding their baggage, wherein the notification is sent when the aircraft arrives at the destination, and the location of the aircraft and passengers are determined from a live database of Ananda. By using a live database of plane and passenger trips, including their locations, a tracking service would predictably be able to inform passengers the status of their baggage when they arrive at their destination or before they depart from a location, thus providing them opportunities to address issues with the baggage or plan for delays.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 4 as stated above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 2015/0195804 A1) (hereinafter Stewart).
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, Park teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the passenger arrives at an item collection point at the destination, preferably wherein the location of the passenger is determined from location data retrieved from a mobile device associated with the passenger, preferably wherein the item collection point is a baggage carousel (See at least paragraphs 17, 18, 51, 53, 34, 35, 41-74, 76, 78, 79, 80-84, 86, and 87 which describe alerting passengers of misdelivered, lost or mishandled baggage when conditions are met, including when the passenger waits at a collection point).
Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Park does not explicitly disclose the following, however Stewart teaches:
Wherein the notification is sent upon or after the passenger arrives at an item collection point at the destination, wherein the location of the passenger is determined from location data retrieved from a mobile device associated with the passenger, wherein the item collection point is a baggage carousel (See at least paragraph 19 which describes providing notifications to users when they are at a luggage carousel, wherein the location is determined by the user’s device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of providing notifications to users when they are at a luggage carousel, wherein the location is determined by the user’s device of Stewart. By collecting user location information form user devices, and sending them baggage notifications when they are at a baggage carousel, a tracking service will provide user’s data regarding where their luggage is in relation to them, thus increasing the likelihood of luggage correction and reducing the customer’s concern regarding delays.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 as stated above, in view of Krasko et al. (US 2017/0004444 A1) (hereinafter Krasko), and further in view of Mahfouz et al. (US 2017/0362033 A1) (hereinafter Mahfouz).
With respect to claim 11, Park discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as stated above. Park does not explicitly disclose the following, however Krasko teaches:
Wherein if the passenger data does not comprise at least one of: a mobile number, user email, the notification is sent to the passenger-accessible device, preferably wherein the passenger-accessible device is a kiosk or an electronic board (See at least paragraph 122 which describes notifying a passenger of lost luggage, wherein the notification is provided as an app notification, and the user has not provided their phone number or email).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of notifying a passenger of lost luggage, wherein the notification is provided as an app notification, and the user has not provided their phone number or email of Krasko. By utilizing notification means, such as an app notification, a baggage tracking service can predictably alert the customers via a professional program on the user’s device, thus ensuring efficient notifications and ensuring users receive the alert.
Park and Krasko discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Park and Krasko do not explicitly disclose the following, however Mahfouz teaches:
The notification is sent to the passenger-accessible device, wherein the passenger-accessible device is a kiosk or an electronic board (See at least paragraphs 20 and 32 which describe a user using a kiosk to view notifications regarding their luggage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of notifying a passenger of lost luggage, wherein the notification is provided as an app notification, and the user has not provided their phone number or email of Krasko, with the system and method of a user using a kiosk to view notifications regarding their luggage of Mahfouz. By allowing a user to view luggage notifications on a terminal, a tracking service will predictably allow customers options when they wish to view their luggage status, thus predictably increasing their satisfaction.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Outwater et al. (US 2015/0029024 A1) (hereinafter Outwater).
With respect to claim 14, Park discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Park does not explicitly disclose the following, however Outwater teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to send the first notification to the mobile and/or the user-accessible device that is/are accessible by the user, the notification informing that the item arrived at the destination earlier than the passenger (See at least paragraph 82 which describes notifying a user of mishandled luggage, wherein the luggage can arrive at the destination prior to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of identifying baggage as being mishandled or misdelivered when a user flies to a destination, wherein the system provides the user with notifications of the delay of Park, with the system and method of notifying a user of mishandled luggage, wherein the luggage can arrive at the destination prior to the user of Outwater. By notifying passengers of luggage arriving at a destination prior to the passenger, such as when the luggage is loaded onto a more direct or earlier flight, a baggage tracking system will predictably be able to ensure passengers that their luggage has not been lost, and ease their minds with respect to lost luggage.
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
31 July 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights