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 non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 22 April 2025.
A preliminary amendment was filed 18 June 2025.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 10-14, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-7, 11, 18, and 19 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 4, the Applicant claims, “wherein the notification is sent when the processor determines that one or more predetermined conditions are met, and preferably 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.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited the phrase, “and preferably 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,” which the Examiner notes is unclear. Particularly, the term “preferably” is a term of preference, rendering it unclear if the text following it is merely providing examples of claimed processes, options, or if it is particularly limiting. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(d) states, “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. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the recitation fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the language after “preferably” to be optional language. Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 5, the Applicant claims, “wherein the notification is sent upon or after the aircraft, train or vessel arrives at the destination, preferably wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel 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.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited the phrase, “preferably wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel 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,” which the Examiner notes is unclear. Particularly, the term “preferably” is a term of preference, rendering it unclear if the text following it is merely providing examples of claimed processes, options, or if it is particularly limiting. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(d) states, “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. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the recitation fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the language after “preferably” to be optional language.
With respect to claim 6, the Applicant claims, “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.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited the phrase, “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,” which the Examiner notes is unclear. Particularly, the term “preferably” is a term of preference, rendering it unclear if the text following it is merely providing examples of claimed processes, options, or if it is particularly limiting. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(d) states, “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. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the recitation fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the language after “preferably” to be optional language.
With respect to claim 7, the Applicant claims, “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.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited the phrase, “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,” which the Examiner notes is unclear. Particularly, the term “preferably” is a term of preference, rendering it unclear if the text following it is merely providing examples of claimed processes, options, or if it is particularly limiting. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(d) states, “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. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the recitation fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the language after “preferably” to be optional language.
With respect to claim 11, the Applicant claims, “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.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited the phrase, “preferably wherein the passenger-accessible device is a kiosk or an electronic board,” which the Examiner notes is unclear. Particularly, the term “preferably” is a term of preference, rendering it unclear if the text following it is merely providing examples of claimed processes, options, or if it is particularly limiting. It is noted that MPEP 2173.05(d) states, “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. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the recitation fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the language after “preferably” to be optional language.
With respect to claim 18, the Applicant claims, “wherein the first and/or second notifications further comprises information relating to a scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the further destination.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has failed to previously define in the claim or a depended upon claim, therefore rendering it unclear as to what these “second notifications” refer to in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “wherein the first notifications or second notifications further comprises information relating to a scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the further destination.”
With respect to claim 19, the Applicant claims, “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 third notification comprising information relating to the new scheduled arrival time for the item to arrive at the further destination.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has referenced, “a third notification,” however they have failed to previously define in the claim or a depended upon claim, “a second notification,” rendering it unclear how this could be a “third notification.” For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “wherein the processor is configured to: v. 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 further destination.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The 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.
The limitations of 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; 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; 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 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 1-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 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 claim 1, 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).
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 preferably 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 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, preferably wherein the location of the aircraft, train or a vessel 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 (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 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).
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).
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 and/or second notifications 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 third 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.
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, and further in view of Krasko et al. (US 2017/0004444 A1) (hereinafter Krasko).
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.
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
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. 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
16 March 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628