DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on June 12, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the claim objections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the indefiniteness claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/fourth paragraph, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Note that some claims no longer have prior art rejections.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues that the claims are patent-eligible as technological improvements. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the 101 rejections, all of the claims can be interpreted as certain method(s) of organizing human activity (a type of abstract idea, which is a type of judicial exception), performed on generic computing system components, without more. Under USPTO 101 guidance, a judicial exception performed on generic computing components, without more, in not eligible. For the technological improvement consideration, there must be some meaningful improvement to such alleged improvement from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. However, in the case of Applicant’s claims, Examiner could not find any meaningful contribution to such an improvement from such additional elements, for example some improved tracking device that helps with the baggage routing. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 32 and 44-45, Examiner addressed the added “wherein the second scheduled route…” limitation via the addition of the Jafri reference. This was not necessary with independent claim 41, because the added limitation was added to the second of two alternative devices that the device in claim 41 may be -- Examiner’s prior art rejection was based on the first of the two alternates. Therefore, Examiner does not find the prior art arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 34-35 and 40 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes the presence of USPTO Office action(s) in Applicant’s recent information disclosure statement(s). Please note that references cited in such USPTO Office action(s) have not necessarily been considered unless individually cited on an information disclosure statement.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user-accessible device(s) or system(s)” in claims 36, 41, and 43; “portable device” in claims 36 and 40; “mobile device” in claims 41-42; “notification system” in claims 36 and 40; “item handling system” in claim 41; and “machine-readable element” in claims 33-34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 32-40 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 32 and 44-45, Claim(s) 32 and 44-45 recite(s):
- item handling management 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;
- determine whether the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route;
- determine the destination for the item;
- 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 different from the first predetermined time;
- process the item according to the second scheduled route, wherein the second scheduled route between the origin and the determined destination is determined based on one or more parameters comprising at least one of: preferred carrier, departing time, loading capacity, and distance between a current location of the item and a point of departure.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): concerns item transportation, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages the routing of an item through a transportation system, which may involve transportation workers’ activities.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; processing means configured; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 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).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 33-40, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- storage means (claims 33, 34);
- data storage (claim 33);
- reading means (claims 33, 34);
- (attachable) tracking means (claims 33, 34, 35);
- machine-readable element (claims 33, 34);
- data retrieval (claim 33);
- reading (claim 34);
- tag (claim 34);
- sticker label (claim 34);
- RFID tag (claim 34);
- remote storage (claim 34);
- cloud-based storage (claim 34);
- outputting via transmitting (claim 36);
- user-accessible device(s) or system(s) (claim 36);
- notification system (claims 36, 40);
- portable device (claims 36, 40).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 37 merely adds detail regarding the notification.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 32-40 and 44-45 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 41, Claim(s) 41 recite(s):
- item handling management for moving an item between an origin and a destination;
- if it is determined that the item has been re-routed to a new, second, route to the destination that is different from an original, first, route to the destination, receive a notification, the notification comprising details relating to the second route, or;
- if it is determined that the item has been re-routed to a new, second, route to the destination that is different from an original, first, route to the destination: i. receive second itinerary data, the second itinerary data comprising details relating to the second route; and ii. output the second itinerary data to a passenger associated with the item, wherein the second route is determined based on one or more parameters comprising at least one of: preferred carrier, departing time, loading capacity, and distance between a current location of the item and a point of departure.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): concerns item transportation, which is commonly a commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages the routing of an item through a transportation system, which may involve transportation workers’ activities; manages interactions between a passenger and a transportation service provider, each of which may involve humans.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a device; communicating; a system; a mobile device; a user-accessible device; outputting via displaying: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 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).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 42-43, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- user input (claims 42, 43);
- electronic board (claim 43);
- kiosk (claim 43).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 42 merely adds detail to the notification and to the data from the user input.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 41-43 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Na, US 20160139596 A1.
As per Claim 41, Na discloses:
- a device for communicating with an item handling system for moving an item between an origin and a destination (Figure 35; paragraph [0283] (“While the flying object delivers a product, a purchaser may cancel the product purchase. When the purchaser cancels the product purchase, the order management server may control the flying object to return to a pre-registered place.”); paragraph [0286] (“Referring to FIG. 34(a), initially, a flight route of the flying object is set to a straight route connecting an origin to a delivery destination. However, when a dangerous area exists on the corresponding flight route, the controller 180 indicates a presence of the dangerous area on the corresponding flight route and can control a button, which is provided to change a flight route (or course), to be output.”); paragraph [0291] (“For instance, FIG. 35 is a diagram illustrating one example of changing a flight route (or course) of a flying object during a flight. Referring to FIG. 35, if the flying object discovers a dangerous element (e.g., a high building) during a flight, the flying object can change a flight route (or course). If so, the flying object can send an information, which indicates that the flight route has been changed, to the mobile terminal. If so, referring to FIG. 35(a), the mobile terminal can control a message, which indicates that the flight route has been changed, to be output.”); paragraph [0292] (“If the message 1310 is touched, as shown in FIG. 35(b), the controller 180 can control an information on the changed flight route to be output. Further, the controller 180 can display an information 1320 on a delivery time increasing/decreasing due to the changed flight route. According to the example shown in FIG. 35(b), as the flight route is changed, the delivery time is incremented by 5 minutes.”));
- wherein the device is a mobile device and if the item handling system determines that the item has been re-routed to a new, second, route to the destination that is different from an original, first, route to the destination, the mobile device is configured to receive a notification from the item handling system, the notification comprising details relating to the second route (Figure 35; paragraph [0283] (“While the flying object delivers a product, a purchaser may cancel the product purchase. When the purchaser cancels the product purchase, the order management server may control the flying object to return to a pre-registered place.”); paragraph [0286] (“Referring to FIG. 34(a), initially, a flight route of the flying object is set to a straight route connecting an origin to a delivery destination. However, when a dangerous area exists on the corresponding flight route, the controller 180 indicates a presence of the dangerous area on the corresponding flight route and can control a button, which is provided to change a flight route (or course), to be output.”); paragraph [0291] (“For instance, FIG. 35 is a diagram illustrating one example of changing a flight route (or course) of a flying object during a flight. Referring to FIG. 35, if the flying object discovers a dangerous element (e.g., a high building) during a flight, the flying object can change a flight route (or course). If so, the flying object can send an information, which indicates that the flight route has been changed, to the mobile terminal. If so, referring to FIG. 35(a), the mobile terminal can control a message, which indicates that the flight route has been changed, to be output.”); paragraph [0292] (“If the message 1310 is touched, as shown in FIG. 35(b), the controller 180 can control an information on the changed flight route to be output. Further, the controller 180 can display an information 1320 on a delivery time increasing/decreasing due to the changed flight route. According to the example shown in FIG. 35(b), as the flight route is changed, the delivery time is incremented by 5 minutes.”)).
(Note that the last three paragraphs of claim 41 need not be given weight here because they represent an alternative set of two sets of limitations, wherein the claim recites the limitations in such a way that only one of the two alternatives need be present.)
As per Claim 42, Na further discloses wherein the notification comprises a new physical path of the second route (Figure 35; paragraph [0283]; paragraph [0286]; paragraph [0291]; paragraph [0292]).
As per Claim 43, Na further discloses wherein the second itinerary data comprises a new physical path of the second route (Figure 35; paragraph [0283]; paragraph [0286]; paragraph [0291]; paragraph [0292]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 32, 36 and 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce, US 20180204030 A1, in view of Jafri, US 20170316523 A1.
As per Claims 32 and 44-45, Bruce discloses:
- an item handling system (or method) 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 (paragraph [0001] (“The present disclosure relates generally to systems, methods and tools for tracking, transporting, scheduling and delivering luggage.”); paragraph [0004] (“A first embodiment of the present disclosure provides a method for transporting baggage comprising the steps of: creating, by a processor of a computer system, a baggage itinerary comprising a waypoint, a final destination and arrival times for the baggage at the waypoint and final destination”); paragraph [0027] (“The routing patterns created may include the identification of departure points such as a gate or terminal, transportation vehicle identification numbers, the arrival/departure times of the transportation vehicle as well as the destination of the transporting vehicle.”); paragraph [0049] (“The routing pattern created by the routing module 107 may provide travel details for the routing the baggage from the starting location to the final destination, including one or more waypoints, gates, terminals, transfer points, times, transportation vehicle numbers, etc.”));
- wherein the system comprises: a. processing means configured to: i. determine whether the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route (paragraph [0001] (“The present disclosure relates generally to systems, methods and tools for tracking, transporting, scheduling and delivering luggage.”); paragraph [0004] (“A first embodiment of the present disclosure provides a method for transporting baggage comprising the steps of: creating, by a processor of a computer system, a baggage itinerary comprising a waypoint, a final destination and arrival times for the baggage at the waypoint and final destination”); paragraph [0027] (“The routing patterns created may include the identification of departure points such as a gate or terminal, transportation vehicle identification numbers, the arrival/departure times of the transportation vehicle as well as the destination of the transporting vehicle.”); paragraph [0041] (Examples of exceptions that may result in errors which can alter an itinerary or routing pattern may include (but are not limited to) missed flights, trip changes, delays, reroutes, no-shows, special requests and combinations thereof. “”); paragraph [0049] (“The routing pattern created by the routing module 107 may provide travel details for the routing the baggage from the starting location to the final destination, including one or more waypoints, gates, terminals, transfer points, times, transportation vehicle numbers, etc.”); paragraph [0060] (“For example, if the cause was caused by the baggage missing the departure of the transportation vehicle, the location of the baggage would most likely be the waypoint at which the baggage failed to reach the transportation vehicle on time.”); claim 7);
- ii. determine the destination for the item (paragraph [0041] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0060] (“For example, if the cause was caused by the baggage missing the departure of the transportation vehicle, the location of the baggage would most likely be the waypoint at which the baggage failed to reach the transportation vehicle on time.”); paragraph [0061] (“Conversely, once the location of the baggage is confirmed, the baggage system 100 may query the routing schedule in step 419, amend the routing pattern in step 421 in order to adjust the route that the baggage will take from the current location to the final destination. The routing module 107 may use the queried routing schedule to assign the baggage to one or more transportation vehicles that may be available to transport the baggage to the next waypoint or destination in the itinerary. Once the amended routing pattern has been prepared, the routing module 107 may, in step 423 assign a new chaperone device 123 programmed for the routing pattern, to accompany the baggage assigned to the baggage group on the bag's journey toward the final destination. The method may subsequently proceed back to step 211 and follow the method as described above, starting from the baggage's current location, until the final destination is achieved.”));
- 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 different from the first predetermined time (paragraph [0027] (“The routing patterns created may include the identification of departure points such as a gate or terminal, transportation vehicle identification numbers, the arrival/departure times of the transportation vehicle as well as the destination of the transporting vehicle.”); paragraph [0041] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0049] (“The routing pattern created by the routing module 107 may provide travel details for the routing the baggage from the starting location to the final destination, including one or more waypoints, gates, terminals, transfer points, times, transportation vehicle numbers, etc.”); paragraph [0060] (“For example, if the cause was caused by the baggage missing the departure of the transportation vehicle, the location of the baggage would most likely be the waypoint at which the baggage failed to reach the transportation vehicle on time.”); paragraph [0061] (“Conversely, once the location of the baggage is confirmed, the baggage system 100 may query the routing schedule in step 419, amend the routing pattern in step 421 in order to adjust the route that the baggage will take from the current location to the final destination. The routing module 107 may use the queried routing schedule to assign the baggage to one or more transportation vehicles that may be available to transport the baggage to the next waypoint or destination in the itinerary. Once the amended routing pattern has been prepared, the routing module 107 may, in step 423 assign a new chaperone device 123 programmed for the routing pattern, to accompany the baggage assigned to the baggage group on the bag's journey toward the final destination. The method may subsequently proceed back to step 211 and follow the method as described above, starting from the baggage's current location, until the final destination is achieved.”); the new upcoming departure time would be later than the original departure time because the original departure time has been missed);
- iv. process the item according to the second scheduled route (paragraph [0061] (“Conversely, once the location of the baggage is confirmed, the baggage system 100 may query the routing schedule in step 419, amend the routing pattern in step 421 in order to adjust the route that the baggage will take from the current location to the final destination. The routing module 107 may use the queried routing schedule to assign the baggage to one or more transportation vehicles that may be available to transport the baggage to the next waypoint or destination in the itinerary. Once the amended routing pattern has been prepared, the routing module 107 may, in step 423 assign a new chaperone device 123 programmed for the routing pattern, to accompany the baggage assigned to the baggage group on the bag's journey toward the final destination. The method may subsequently proceed back to step 211 and follow the method as described above, starting from the baggage's current location, until the final destination is achieved.”));
- a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor (paragraph [0074]).
Bruce fails to disclose wherein a scheduled route between the origin and the destination is determined based on a parameter comprising preferred carrier. Jafri discloses wherein a scheduled route between the origin and the destination is determined based on a parameter comprising preferred carrier (paragraph [0211] (“In the above example, if the selection of the airline is marked positive, then the selected airline is a preferred airline, e.g., only flights operated by the selected airline (or flights operated by the airline's partners) are to be considered.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bruce such that a scheduled route between the origin and the destination is determined based on a parameter comprising preferred carrier, as disclosed by Jafri, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 36, Bruce further discloses wherein the item handling system comprises a notification system for sending a message to a portable device of a passenger associated with the item, wherein a notification is sent to the portable device of the passenger if the processing means: determines that the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route (paragraph [0012]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0041]; paragraph [0046]; paragraph [0049]; paragraph [0060]; paragraph [0062]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Jafri in further view of Passot, US 20210132615 A1.
As per Claim 33, Bruce further discloses having first itinerary data associated with the item, the first itinerary data comprising: the origin, the destination, the first predetermined departure time, and a physical path between the origin and destination according to the first scheduled route; and c. reading means for reading a tracking means associated with the item, the tracking means being attachable to the item and having a machine-readable element, wherein reading the machine-readable element via the reading means allows the processing means to use the first itinerary data of the item to determine the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route, and if the item has missed the first predetermined departure time of the first scheduled route, having second itinerary data relating to the determined second scheduled route, the second itinerary data comprising: the second predetermined departure time and a physical path between the origin and destination according to the second scheduled route (paragraph [0027]; paragraphs [0035]-[0036]; paragraph [0041]; paragraph [0044]; paragraph [0049]; paragraph [0050]; paragraph [0060]; paragraph [0061]; paragraph [0062]).
The modified Bruce fails to disclose storage means for storing original itinerary data and revised itinerary data; accessing the storage means to retrieve data. Passot discloses storage means for storing original itinerary data and revised itinerary data (paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0122]); accessing the storage means to retrieve data (paragraph [0073]; paragraph [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bruce such that the invention includes storage means for storing original itinerary data and revised itinerary data; and the invention accesses the storage means to retrieve data, as disclosed by Passot, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Jafri in further view of Valbh, US 20090115572 A1.
As per Claim 37, the modified Bruce fails to disclose wherein the notification comprises an arrival time at the destination based on the second scheduled route. Valbh discloses wherein the notification comprises an arrival time at the destination based on the second scheduled route (paragraph [0019]; paragraph [0023]; paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bruce such that the notification comprises an arrival time at the destination based on the second scheduled route, as disclosed by Valbh, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Jafri in further view of Abdollahzadeh, US 20180121871 A1.
As per Claim 38, the modified Bruce fails to disclose wherein the item, after arriving at the destination, is further re-routed to a second destination. Abdollahzadeh discloses wherein the item, after arriving at the destination, is further re-routed to a second destination (paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bruce such that the item, after arriving at the destination, is further re-routed to a second destination, as disclosed by Abdollahzadeh, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 39, the modified Bruce fails to disclose wherein the processing means receives details relating to the second destination for the further re-routing from a passenger associated with the item. Abdollahzadeh further discloses wherein the processing means receives details relating to the second destination for the further re-routing from a passenger associated with the item (paragraph [0069]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Bruce such that the processing means receives details relating to the second destination for the further re-routing from a passenger associated with the item, as disclosed by Abdollahzadeh, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Lewandowski, US 9710776 B1 (overlay bag tag);
b. Krasko, US 20170004444 A1 (baggage tracking system).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights