DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 were amended. Claims 3 and 10 were cancelled, and new claims 16-19 were added.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously acknowledge, this application claims foreign priority based on European Application EP24177647.5, filed May 23, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous claim objections to claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 13 (pg. 9, remarks filed 6/3/2026) have been considered and are persuasive. Claim 3 was canceled, and claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 13 are amended to correct the previous issues.
The previous objections are withdrawn. However, see the new objection to claim 16.
35 USC § 112(b):
The remarks filed 6/3/2026 do not specifically address the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 and 8-13. However, the claims appear to be amended to address the previous issues. For example, claim 3 is canceled, claims 4 and 11 are amended to recite “a travel terminal,” and claim 8 is amended to recite “at least one self-service terminal.”
Therefore, the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 3-4 and 8-13 are withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-15 (pg. 9, remarks filed 6/3/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 9), that “the real world control of physical machinery (e.g. luggage control station and boarding system) by a computer brings a claim clear unambiguously within the legal requirements of s. 101. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981).”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims as amended are rendered eligible under § 101. The claims do not control the physical movement or functioning of machinery similar to the operation of a rubber molding press under Diamond v. Diehr. Under MPEP 2106 section (II), “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility.” The amended limitations for i) controlling a luggage drop station to generate a label or ii) controlling a boarding system to enable boarding encompasses controlling computers recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea (“generate a label…” and “enable boarding…”). Generating a label for identifying luggage describes both a commercial interaction and a mental process that could be carried out via the human mind with the aid of simple tools (e.g. pen and paper to fill out or create a written a luggage tag). Furthermore, “enabling boarding” could include any function even remotely related to a boarding process, including receiving, analyzing, checking, generating, or outputting information (e.g. boarding pass info) related to boarding of a flight for checked-in passengers. Unlike Diamond v. Diehr, in which a rubber molding press was operated based on the results of an abstract idea, the instant claims at most merely recite control of generic computing devices to apply an abstract idea – which are not analogous to operating a rubber molding press.
Therefore, the previous § 101 rejection is maintained, and is updated below to reflect the claim amendments and new claims 16-19. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 below.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-15 (pgs. 9-13, remarks filed 6/3/2026) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the current § 103 rejections of pending claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-17 below, in response to applicant’s amendments. Please see the updated § 103 rejections below.
However, new claims 18-19 are considered novel and nonobvious over the prior art, as no combination of the prior art reviewed by the examiner teaches the limitations of claims 18-19 in the context of the claims as a whole.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites a typo with two periods at the end of the claim instead of a single period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“one or more online passenger operations controlled by the online departure control system” of claims 1 and 8
“a boarding system…to: enable boarding…” of claims 1 and 8
“each workstation arranged to enable authorised users to undertake one or more passenger operations” of claim 4
“each workstation arranged to enable authorised users to undertake one or more passenger operations” of claim 11
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.
The corresponding structure in the specification is as follows:
“the online departure control system” – ¶ 0052-0053, ¶ 0058-0067
“a boarding system” - ¶ 0078
“each workstation” (referred to earlier in the claims as “one or more workstations”) – ¶ 0041, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0023
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 16 and 18 recite “A passenger processing system…comprising an offline departure control system including a processor and a memory….” (i.e. a machine); claims 8-9, 11-13, 17, and 19 recite “A computer-implemented passenger processing method…” (i.e. a process); and claims 14-15 depend from claim 1 but recite “A self-service terminal…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 8 (using method claim 8 as representative) recite limitations for:
processing one or more passenger operations at a travel facility in respect of one or more travel services,
wherein the one or more passenger operations include updating passenger reservation records associated with passengers utilising the respective travel services, the method comprising:
monitoring a status of each of the one or more travel services, said status selected from: an online status; and an offline status;
for each travel service having an online status:
receiving passenger data…said passenger data enabling a determination of a current status of passenger records at the time of communication of the passenger data for the one or more online passenger operations, and
in response to receiving passenger data, generating a most recent online snapshot of the travel service based on the received passenger data, wherein the online snapshot represents a state of the passenger reservation records for the travel service at the time at which the passenger data was communicated; and
for each travel service having an offline status:
in response to determining a change in mode from the online mode to an offline mode for the travel service, generating an offline snapshot based on the most recent online snapshot for the travel service, and
subsequently updating the offline snapshot based on newly received passenger operation data…such that the offline snapshot comprises a record of updates to the passenger reservation records for the travel service
using the offline snapshot…
generate a label with indicia identifying an item of luggage and process the item of luggage using the label; and…
enable boarding of a flight based on check-in passengers
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. managing passenger data records according to an online or offline status of travel services, and using an offline snapshot from the passenger data records to manage luggage label generation and processing and/or perform a flight boarding process) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis.
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. managing passenger data records according to an online or offline status of travel services, and using an offline snapshot from the passenger data records to manage luggage label generation and processing and/or perform a flight boarding process), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 8 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “monitoring” and “receiving” steps amounts to an observation, while the “processing” (preamble), “updating,” (preamble), “generating,” “determining,” “generating,” “update,” “generate,” and “enable” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or functions which could be carried out in the human mind with the use of pen and paper (e.g. recording and updating records using paper ledgers, filling out/creating a luggage label). Note that “enable boarding of a flight…” is broad enough to include essentially any process relating to boarding a flight, and could include mentally checking that a passenger is checked in, evaluating a boarding pass, etc. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 8 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1 and 8 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 8 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing passenger data records according to an online or offline status of travel services, and using an offline snapshot from the passenger data records to manage luggage label generation and processing and/or perform a flight boarding process) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A passenger processing system…comprising: an offline departure control system including a processor and a memory and in data communication with one or more online departure control systems and one or more self-service terminals, wherein the memory stores a plurality of programming instructions executable by the processor; the programming instructions configured to…,” “an online departure control system,” “the one or more self-service terminals,” “control at least one of: a luggage drop station in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…and a boarding system in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…” of claim 1; and a “computer-implemented” method “executable on a processor of an offline departure control system…,” “an online departure control system,” and “controlling at least one of: a luggage drop station in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…and a boarding system in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…” of claim 8). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The various limitations throughout claims 1 and 8 for receiving or transmitting data (including “in data communication”) or updating records involving the offline departure control system, online departure control system, and one or more self-service terminals merely amount to the use of the generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) – and thus are simply used to carry out the abstract idea in a computer environment. The 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. The additional limitations for i) controlling a luggage drop station to generate a label or ii) controlling a boarding system to enable boarding encompasses controlling computers recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea (“generate a label…” and “enable boarding…”).
Furthermore, while the claimed invention discusses functions performed based on an online or offline status – the claims do not provide a technological improvement as a solution to some technological problem associated with the system going offline, but merely use a generic offline computer to continue carrying out abstract functions for managing passengers records according to the most recent data at the time the system went offline – which does not improve any technology. The claims do not recite a specific improved communications mechanism or improved network configuration (e.g an improvement to how departure control computers send and receive data) or an improvement to any other technology. Instead, the claims merely use an offline departure control system to “generate an offline snapshot…” and “update the offline snapshot based on newly received passenger operations data” in response to the change to the offline mode, which does not provide anything more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computers.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing passenger data records according to an online or offline status of travel services, and using an offline snapshot from the passenger data records to manage luggage label generation and processing and/or perform a flight boarding process) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A passenger processing system…comprising: an offline departure control system including a processor and a memory and in data communication with one or more online departure control systems and one or more self-service terminals, wherein the memory stores a plurality of programming instructions executable by the processor; the programming instructions configured to…,” “an online departure control system,” “the one or more self-service terminals,” “control at least one of: a luggage drop station in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…and a boarding system in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…” of claim 1; and a “computer-implemented” method “executable on a processor of an offline departure control system…,” “an online departure control system,” and “controlling at least one of: a luggage drop station in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…and a boarding system in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to…” of claim 8). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
As above, the various limitations throughout claims 1 and 8 for receiving or transmitting data (including “in data communication”) or updating records involving the offline departure control system, online departure control system, and one or more self-service terminals merely amount to the use of the generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) to apply the abstract idea – which does not add significantly more. The additional limitations for i) controlling a luggage drop station to generate a label or ii) controlling a boarding system to enable boarding encompasses controlling computers recited at a high level of generality to perform an abstract idea (“generate a label…” and “enable boarding…”).
Further, while the claimed invention may be used in response to a situation where a departure control system goes offline (identifying a technological issue) – the claims do not provide a technological improvement as a solution to this problem, but merely recite the use a generic offline computer performing local operations to continue carrying out the abstract idea. This does not improve the functioning of computers/terminals themselves or improve any other technology. Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-19:
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-19 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 8 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 9 further recite in response to determining a change in mode from the online mode to an offline mode for the travel service, instructing at least one self-service terminal to undertake offline passenger operations (by “the offline departure control system” in claim 2) – which merely adds generic computers implementation and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to send and receive data. The additional “optionally” limitations in claim 2 are not required but nonetheless require mere receiving or transmitting of data between the offline departure control system and self-service terminals.
Claims 4 and 11 describes wherein the offline departure control system is also in data communication with one or more workstations located at a travel terminal, which merely described a computer configuration and generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations “workstation arranged to enable authorised users to undertake one or more passenger operations on behalf of passengers” further describes an abstract idea carried out on a generic “workstation” recited as a high level of generality.
Claims 5 and 12 further describes the abstract idea by describing the statuses of the travel services.
Claims 6 and 13 merely further describe the abstract idea above by reciting information include in the snapshots and describing the travel facility.
Claim 7 recites “wherein at least one self-service terminal is configured to present an interface comprising indicia associated with a provider of a travel service…” – however, the generic display of information associated with a travel service provider does not add anything beyond generic computer implementation, which does not render claim 7 eligible.
Claim 14 recites “A self-service terminal configured to communicate with the offline departure control system of the passenger processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the self-service terminal is arranged to enable passengers to undertake self-service for one or more passenger operations.” These limitations describe the use of computers in their ordinary capacity and generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further the self-service terminal is merely used as a tool to “enable passengers to undertake self-service…,” (mere instructions to “apply it” using generic computers). Nothing in claim 14 improves the functioning of computers themselves or recites an improvement to any other technology.
Claim 15 further recites mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (“determine a status of the particular flight selected from an online status and an offline status”) using a generic computer (the one or more self-service terminal), in conjunction with the use of the self-service terminal in its ordinary capacity to perform basic data communication functions (“the one or more self-service terminal is configured to communicate with the offline departure control system”) – which does not add meaningful limitations that would render claim 15 eligible under § 101.
Claims 16 and 17 recite further limitations to “in response to a change in mode from the offline mode to the online mode for the travel service, update the passenger reservation records of the respective online departure control system using at least one of luggage-label status data and boarding-status data generated during the offline status, such that further control of the travel service resumes by the respective online departure control system” – however, these limitations merely describe the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive and/or transmit data (i.e. perform generic computer functions to apply the abstract functions to “update the passenger reservation records” using generic computer components), and do not render claims 16 and 17 eligible under § 101.
Claims 18 and 19 recite limitations further describing when the luggage drop station and boarding system described in respective claims 1 and 8 are controlled, and merely further describe the performance of the abstract idea above using generic computers.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-19 are ineligible under § 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190354902 A1 to Huntley et al. (Huntley) in view of US 20170331915 A1 to Jann et al. (Jann), and further in view of NPL Reference U (“Abomis,” see current PTO-892).
Claim 1: Huntley teaches:
A passenger processing system for processing one or more passenger operations at a travel facility in respect of one or more travel services (Huntley: ¶ 0011, Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0038 showing an airport departure control system for processing passenger information for travel services), wherein the one or more passenger operations include updating passenger reservation records associated with passengers utilising the respective travel services (Huntley: ¶ 0016, ¶ 0036-0039, and operations described in Fig. 2 showing receiving and updating passenger records in departure control systems), the passenger processing system comprising:
an offline departure control system including a processor and memory (Huntley: ¶ 0035 “The local backup may be any suitable computer server with secure storage and communications interfaces”) and in data communication with one or more online departure control systems (Huntley: Fig. 1, ¶ 0035 showing “In addition to the central DCS, a local backup DCS 108 a, 108 b . . . 108 n is provided at each of the airports at which the airline operating the central DCS 102 operates. The local DCS backup 108 a-108 n communicates with the central DCS over communication links 110 a, 110 b . . . 110 n”) and one or more self-service terminals (Huntley: ¶ 0042 “passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”),
[…] configured to cause the processor to: monitor a status of each of the one or more travel services, said status selected from: an online status; and an offline status (Huntley: ¶ 0020 “a detector arranged at the local departure control systems for detecting the non-availability of the central departure control system, and, on detection, causing the local departure control system to assume responsibility for the flight”; also see ¶ 0040-0041 showing detection of a failure in connectivity with the central DNS, and also showing restoration of connection, e.g. online status, of the local DCS with the central DCS);
for each travel service having an online status (Huntley: ¶ 0027, ¶ 0039 showing central DCS collects passenger details, and transmits data to local/backup DCS while in in communication between the central DCS and local DCS is active, i.e. “online status” -which is distinguished from the scenario when loss of connectivity (e.g. “offline”) is detected such as in ¶ 0038):
receive passenger data from an online departure control system associated with the travel service, said passenger data enabling a determination of a current status of passenger records at the time of communication of the passenger data for one or more online passenger operations controlled by the online departure control system (Huntley: ¶ 0021-0025, ¶ 0027, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0039 showing receiving passenger details at check-in and updating passenger check-in status at central DCS, forming a passenger data message, and transmitting passenger details to the local DCS; see ¶ 0045-0046 showing current passenger status information), and
in response to receiving new passenger data, generate a most recent online snapshot of the travel service based on the received passenger data (Huntley: ¶ 0039 “The local DCS 108 at step 204 will receive the passenger data message and overwrite any data related to the passenger already stored with the contents of the passenger data message. Alternatively, local DCS may have no knowledge of that passenger in which case it stores the passenger data message at step 206 or creates a new passenger record from scratch at 208”, i.e. generates a most recent online snapshot based on the received passenger data),
wherein the online snapshot represents a state of the passenger reservation records for the travel service at the time at which the passenger data was communicated from the associated online departure control system (Huntley: as per ¶ 0037 above, “the central DCS may send passenger data messages to the appropriate local DCS 108 a . . . n whenever the passenger record in the central DCS is updated” and ¶ 0039, ¶ 0043-0048 showing the passenger data message stored in the backup DCS is based on the most current data received from the central DCS as per above, and includes check-in status and ticket status information); and
With respect to the limitations:
wherein the memory stores a plurality of programming instructions executable by the processor; the programming instructions configured to cause the processor to…
Huntley teaches the local DCS being implemented as a computer server including storage (Huntley: ¶ 0035), which would suggest but does not explicitly recite that “the memory stores a plurality of programming instructions executable by the processor; the programming instructions configured to cause the processor to…” perform the functionality.
However, Jann teaches memory storing computer programming instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to carry out execute the instructions (Jann: ¶ 0073, ¶ 0140-0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the computer/server implementation of a processor executing programming instructions stored in a computer readable medium as taught by Jann above in the departure control system of Huntley, 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.
With respect to the limitations:
for each travel service having an offline status: in response to determining a change in mode from the online mode to an offline mode for the travel service, generating an offline snapshot based on a most recent online snapshot for the travel service, and
Huntley teaches that the local DCS continuously stores a local backup based on current data received from the central DCS, for use in the scenario in which the connection with the central DCS is lost (e.g. “offline status”), and thus once the connection is lost the local DCS backup implicitly becomes an “offline snapshot” that was based on the most recent snapshot while the system was online, i.e. based on the most recent online snapshot (Huntley: ¶ 0034-0041)– but Huntley’s local backup is continuously updated with the latest data while in communication with the central DCS, and thus does not explicitly generate the offline snapshot from an online snapshot, in response to the change to the offline mode.
However, Jann teaches a system for continuous operation in an offline mode when network connectivity is lost (Jann: ¶ 0134-0139) wherein in response to a change from an online mode to an offline mode (Jann: ¶ 0135 “receiving, at a server device, an indication to operate at least one application in the plurality of applications in an offline mode on the computing device”), generating an offline datastore, i.e. offline snapshot, based on information retrieved from the online datastore, i.e. online snapshot (Jann: ¶ 0135 “generating a plurality of requests, the requests configured to retrieve data and instructions for operating the at least one application using an online datastore…” ¶ 0136 “generating an offline datastore based on the requests, the data, and the instructions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the generation of an offline database snapshot based on an online database of Jann in the departure control system of Huntley/Jann with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to enable the at least one application to operate without network access (Jann: ¶ 0137). Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, 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.
Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
subsequently updating the offline snapshot based on newly received passenger operation data received from the one or more self-service terminals, such that the offline snapshot comprises a record of updates to the passenger reservation records for the travel service (Huntley: ¶ 0038 “the airline may switch over to the local DCS to handle flights from a given airport. As the local DCS communicates with the airport terminal 106 local check-in staff can access data in the local DCS…The local DCS may be used to continue passenger check-in without loss or gaps in data”; and ¶ 0042 “If the central DCS falls over while the flight is being checked-in, once the backup DCS has been switched in, further check-ins made by passengers will be handled by the local DCS. Some check-in services, such as web check-in may, not be available as, as discussed above, this check-in is via the reservation system which will also not be accessible. However, passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility. Passengers who are listed as having checked-in at the point of switch-over remain checked-in”; also see ¶ 0041 showing “Because the local DCS 108 is a temporary store, there is no need for the local DCS to store passenger data messages for longer than is necessary to process the flight to which they relate. Once communications with the central DCS has been restored, the local DCS may, optionally, transfer the passenger data messages back to the central DCS before deleting them”; note as per Fig. 2 above, passenger check in involves storing/updating the passenger records in the local DCS)
With respect to the remaining limitations:
using the offline snapshot, control at least one of:
a luggage drop station in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to: generate a label with indicia identifying an item of luggage and process the item of luggage using the label;
and, a boarding system in communication with the offline departure control system and the one or more online departure control systems to: enable boarding of a flight based on checked-in passengers
Huntley teaches that the local/backup DCS (departure control system), which locally stores passenger data needed for check-in and boarding (“using the offline snapshot”) in order to takes over flight check-in and processes when the connection to a central departure control system fails, wherein the local DCS is in communications with the local airline terminal system (boarding system) that is also in communication with the central DCS (Huntley: ¶ 0035-0042; Figs 1 & 3), and highly suggests that the local DCS would also take over control of boarding of the flight (Huntley: ¶ 0011 “the passenger data message comprising information necessary to validate the passenger to which it relates for boarding the flight for which they are checked-in…” and ¶ 0012 “Embodiments of the invention may have the advantage that the effects of the non-availability of a central DCS may be ameliorated with responsibility for departure of a given flight being transferred to a local departure control system for each flight” and ¶ 0002 “A Departure Control System (DCS) typically manages information required for airport check-in, the printing of boarding cards, the acceptance of baggage, aircraft boarding, load control and aircraft checks”).
However, to any extent that Huntley does not fully teach controlling a boarding system… to: enable boarding of a flight based on checked-in passengers, Abomis teaches a backup DCS which takes over full control of check-in and boarding processes (i.e. boarding system) using a standby facility to enable passengers to check in and board the flight without disruption regardless of a primary DCS failure (Abomis: Pgs. 1-3, with pg. 1 showing “Back-up DCS is a reliable standby facility that ensures smooth and consistent passenger check-in and boarding operations at airports when the primary DCS fails. To minimize the damage caused by the primary DCS outage, a reliable back-up DCS takes over the passenger processing operations even if the main DCS goes down in the middle of the check-in and boarding procedures. Simply put, operating airline and passengers feel no difference in the check-in process when the back-up system is online as travel documents are continuously printed in the same format used by the primary DCS”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the control of operations to enable checking and boarding by the backup DCS of Abomis in the departure control system of Huntley/Jann with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to ensure “smooth and consistent passenger check-in and boarding operations at airports when the primary DCS fails” (Abomis: pg. 1).
Claim Interpretation Note: The claims and specification do not specify any particular configuration of the boarding system, and thus it could include any software or hardware implemented configuration (including a functional element of the backup/local DCS).
Claim 2: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the offline departure control system is further configured to, in response to determining a change in mode from the online mode to an offline mode for the travel service, instruct at least one self-service terminal to undertake offline passenger operations in respect of the travel service (Huntley: ¶ 0042 “If the central DCS falls over while the flight is being checked-in, once the backup DCS has been switched in, further check-ins made by passengers will be handled by the local DCS. Some check-in services, such as web check-in may, not be available as, as discussed above, this check-in is via the reservation system which will also not be accessible. However, passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”),
optionally wherein the offline departure control system is configured to: receive status requests, each identifying a respective flight, from the one or more self-service terminals; and for a particular status request, respond to the sending self-service terminal with an instruction for the one or more self-service terminal to undertake online passenger operations or offline passenger operations in dependence with the current mode of the flight
Note: All “optionally” included limitations are given the appropriate patentable weight and are not necessary for a prior art reference to read on the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2103, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” Also see MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim 4: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the offline departure control system is also in data communication with one or more workstations located at a travel terminal (Huntley: ¶ 0042 “passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”),
each workstation arranged to enable authorised users to undertake one or more passenger operations on behalf of passengers (Huntley: ¶ 0042 as above, showing the passengers may check-in using the local self-service check-in kiosk, which are automatically reconfigured to communicate with the backup DCS)
Claim 5: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein: each travel service in the offline mode is unable to be changed to the online mode (Huntley: ¶ 0038 “If the central DCS fails, connectivity is lost, there is a breach of security or some other event occurs which prevents use of the central DCS, the airline may switch over to the local DCS to handle flights from a given airport” and ¶ 0040 “In the event that a failure of the central DCS 102 is detected, which might be a failure either in the DCS itself or in the ability of an airport to access the DCS, that failure is registered at step 210 and at step 212 the backup DCS is switched in to become the temporary primary DCS for that airport”; also see ¶ 0041-0042 showing while connectivity is lost or central DCS failure continues, the airline/airport services are unable to operate in the online mode in which the central DCS is used as the primary DCS); and/or
all travel services of a particular online departure control system are either in the online mode or offline mode simultaneously (Huntley: ¶ 0040 showing “In the event of failure of the central DCS 102 is detected…” the backup DCS switches in as the temporary primary DCS for that airport, i.e. all travel services associated with the central DCS would be switched to the “offline” local DCS)
Claim 6: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein: the online snapshot and/or the offline snapshot includes flight information and manifest data or information from which flight information and manifest data can be determined for its respective travel service (Huntley: ¶ 0044-0046 showing the passenger data message transmitted to and stored in the local DCS includes at least flight information, passenger records, and check-in status for passenger on the respective flight); and/or
the travel facility is an airport and wherein the one or more travel services are flights (Huntley: ¶ 0019-0021, ¶ 0025-0027, Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0042 showing the system pertains to departure controls systems within an airport and flights for an airline)
Claim 8: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations to claim 8. Huntley further teaches “A computer-implemented passenger processing method for processing one or more passenger operations at a travel facility in respect of one or more travel services…” (Huntley: ¶ 0039-0042 showing process for processing passenger records and check-in for a flight at an airport, even in the case of a primary departure control system failure; also see Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0039 showing configurations for airport terminals and computer/server implementation). Huntley further teaches: “wherein the offline departure control system is in data communication with the one or more online departure control systems and the one or more self-service terminals” (Huntley: Fig. 1, ¶ 0034-0042 showing local/backup departure control systems (offline DCS) which are in communication with a central departure control system (online DCS), and ¶ 0042 showing one or more self service terminals in communication with the local DCS).
Claim 9: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 11: See the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 14: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
A self-service terminal configured to communicate with the offline departure control system of the passenger processing system (Huntley: ¶ 0042 showing “passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”) as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the self-service terminal is arranged to enable passengers to undertake self-service for one or more passenger operations (Huntley: ¶ 0042 “passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks…”)
Claim 15: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 14. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein, during a particular instance of a passenger undertaking self-service for one or more passenger operations in relation to a particular flight, the one or more self-service terminal is configured to determine a status of the particular flight selected from an online status and an offline status (Huntley: ¶ 0017, ¶ 0020, ¶ 0040 showing detecting the non-availability of the central departure control system, (i.e. offline status for the flight departure control) and, on detection, causing the local departure control system to assume responsibility for the flight; ¶ 0042 “If the central DCS falls over while the flight is being checked-in… passengers may check-in on arrival at the airport either using local self-service check-in kiosks or the check-in terminal staffed by the airline. Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”), and
wherein the one or more self-service terminal is configured to communicate with the offline departure control system upon determining that the flight has an offline status (Huntley: ¶ 0042 “Such Check-in equipment may automatically reconfigure itself to communicate with the backup DCS on receipt of a message informing it that the central DCS is down and that the back-up DCS has assumed responsibility”)
Claim 16: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the programming instructions are further configured to cause the processor to, in response to a change in mode from the offline mode to the online mode for the travel service, update the passenger reservation records of the respective online departure control system using at least one of luggage-label status data and boarding-status data generated during the offline status, such that further control of the travel service resumes by the respective online departure control system (Huntley: ¶ 0041 “Once communications with the central DCS has been restored, the local DCS may, optionally, transfer the passenger data messages back to the central DCS before deleting them”; note that as per ¶ 0046, ¶ 0011, ¶ 0019-0020 the transfer of the passenger data messages back to the central DCS reads on “boarding-status data”)
Claim 17: See the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190354902 A1 to Huntley et al. (Huntley) in view of US 20170331915 A1 to Jann et al. (Jann), further in view of NPL Reference U (“Abomis,” see current PTO-892), and further in view of US 20140358594 A1 to Antonakakis.
Claim 7: Huntley/Jann/Abomis teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein at least one self-service terminal is configured to present an interface comprising indicia associated with a provider of a travel service when in the offline mode for that travel service
Huntley teaches at least one self-service terminal for checking into a flight when in the offline mode, where communication is switched over to the local DCS backup (Huntley: ¶ 0042 showing self-service check-in kiosks), and thus covers the concept that the self-service terminal continues operating to allow check-in while operating in the local/offline mode – but Huntley/Jann/Abomis do not explicitly teach that the self-service terminals present an interface comprising indicia associated with a provider of a travel service.
However, Antonakakis teaches a self-service terminal/kiosk that presents an interface displaying flight details for the flight on a display of the kiosk, i.e. indicia associated with a provider of a travel service (Antonakakis: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0044, ¶ 0046; ¶ 0029-0030 showing the flight details are associated with a flight for a particular airline). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the displaying flight details on a display of a self-service kiosk of Antonakakis in the departure control system of Huntley/Jann/Abomis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Although the boarding process seems automated in many respects, for the frequent business traveler the boarding process remains a very painful and tiring process for the traveler that has to be in and out of planes, cities, and customer business meetings day-in and day-out. The frequent traveler wants to spend the least amount of time in the airport so any opportunity to simplify the travel process: to shorten the traveler's journey, to simply the traveler's journey, and/or to make it less inconvenient for the traveler is welcomed” (Antonakakis: ¶ 0006). Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, 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.
Note: The term “indicia” is not defined in the claims or specification – and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of indicia is interpreted as including “information.”
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 18 and 19 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art because:
While independent claims 1 and 8 are taught by the combination of Huntley, Jann, and Abomis above, they do not teach the limitations of claims 18 and 19.
US 20190354902 A1 to Huntley et al. (Huntley) is the closest relevant prior art and teaches both an online departure control system and a local/backup departure control system which may be used even when the connection to the online departure control system is not lost for the purposes of fast accurate and accurate local validation (Huntley: ¶ 0058). However, Huntley does not teach “wherein the luggage drop station and the boarding system are each concurrently controllable by the offline departure control system and by at least one of the one or more online departure control systems, such that, during an overlapping operating period, the luggage drop station is configured to generate luggage labels for travel services having the online status and travel services having the offline status, and the boarding system is configured to enable boarding for travel services having the online status and travel services having the offline status” as per claim 18, and the similar limitations of claim 19.
CN 112308181 A (see attached English translation) teaches an offline luggage processing system that allows passengers to generate tags for their luggage when a connection fault occurs with a central server/system, but does not teach the limitations above.
None of the other prior art cited cures the deficiencies of the cited combination of Huntley, Jann, and Abomis above, and an updated search did not identify any closer prior art to the limitations above. Therefore, claims 18-19 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights