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 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-15 were amended in a preliminary amendment filed 5/22/2025. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority based on European Application No. 24177647.5, filed May 23, 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/22/2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “one or more self-service terminals” – but then later recites “the self-service terminals,” which appears it should recite “the one or more self-service terminals”
Claim 2 recites “the self-service terminals” but should recite “the one or more self-service terminals.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a kiosk” but should recite “wherein the at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a kiosk”
Claims 6 and 13 recite “an online snapshot and/or offline snapshot,” but should recite “the online snapshot and/or the offline snapshot…”
Claim 8 recites “subsequently update the offline snapshot…” but appears it should instead recite “subsequently updating the offline snapshot…”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “preferably wherein the method is implemented by an offline departure control system in data communication with the one or more online departure control systems and the one or more self-service terminals.” As per MPEP 2173.05(d), “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.” While the claim is not found to be indefinite, the examiner recommends amending claim 8 to either clearly include this limitation, or clearly indicate that it is an optional limitation. The examiner interprets these limitations as optional limitations in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(h). As per 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.”
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:
“an offline departure control system in data communication with one or more online departure control systems…wherein the offline departure control system is configured to: monitor a status…receive passenger data…generate a most recent online snapshot…determining a change in mode…generate an offline snapshot…update the offline snapshot…” of claim 1
“receive passenger data from an online departure control system” of claim 1
“one or more online passenger operations controlled by the online departure control system” of claims 1 and 8
“the offline departure control system is further configured to, in response to determining a change in mode…instruct at least one self-service terminal to undertake offline passenger operations…” of claim 2
“wherein the offline departure control system is configured to: receive status requests…and…respond…with an instruction…” of claim 2
“wherein the offline departure control system is also in data communication with one or more workstations…” and “each workstation arranged to enable authorised users to undertake one or more passenger operations” of claim 4
“receiving passenger data from an online departure control system” of claim 8
“wherein the method is implemented by an offline departure control system in data communication with the one or more online departure control systems…” of claim 8
“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:
“an offline departure control system” – ¶ 0045-0047 showing hardware configuration, ¶ 0010-0012, ¶ 0015 showing functional limitations
“an online departure control system “ – ¶ 0052-0053, ¶ 0058-0067
“one or more workstations”/ “each workstation” – ¶ 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “The passenger processing system as claimed in claim 1, comprising: a passenger operation corresponding to passenger check-in, and wherein at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a kiosk for enabling self-service passenger check-in, and/or a passenger operation corresponding to a luggage drop service for passenger luggage, and wherein at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a luggage drop station for enabling self-service passenger luggage drop.” Thus, while claims 1 and 3 are directed to a system, the additional limitations describe operations (i.e. method steps) that are not explicitly tied to any previously recited system element, rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the performance of these operations or when the operations are actually performed. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner interprets these operations as being performed by any of the recited system elements of claim 1.
See MPEP 2173.05(p), showing “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claims 4 and 11 also recite “the travel terminal,” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims and renders claims 4 and 11 indefinite because it is unclear what “the travel terminal” is referring to, and whether the claims were intended to include some previous function or limitation involving a travel terminal. For the purpose of further examination, the examiner reads claims 4 and 11 as though they recite “a travel terminal.”
Claim 8 recites “subsequently update the offline snapshot based on newly received passenger operation data received from the at least one self-service terminals” – however, claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the at least one self-service terminals,” rendering claim 8 indefinite because it is unclear what “the at least one self-service terminals” refers back to. The claim later recites another instance of “the one or more self-service terminals.” For the purpose of further examination, the limitation is above is interpreted as reciting “at least one self-service terminal” and the second instance is interpreted as reciting “the at least one self-service terminal.”
Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and are also rejected under § 112(b).
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 1-15 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 1-7 recite “A passenger processing system…comprising an offline departure control system….” (i.e. a machine); claims 8-13 recite “A 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 update 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
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) 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), 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,” and “update” 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). 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) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A passenger processing system” including an offline departure control system in data communication with one or more online departure control systems and one or more self-service terminals,” “the offline departure control system is configured to,” “an online departure control system,” and “one or more self-service terminals” of claim 1; and “an online departure control system,” and the optional limitation “preferably wherein the method is implemented by an offline departure control system in data communication with the one or more online departure control systems and the one or more self-service terminals”). 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. 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.
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.
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) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A passenger processing system” including an offline departure control system in data communication with one or more online departure control systems and one or more self-service terminals,” “the offline departure control system is configured to,” “an online departure control system,” and “one or more self-service terminals” of claim 1; and “an online departure control system,” and the optional limitation “preferably wherein the method is implemented by an offline departure control system in data communication with the one or more online departure control systems and the one or more self-service terminals”).
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.
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.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-15:
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 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 3 and 10 describe passenger operations, and describe the self-service terminal as either a kiosk or a luggage drop station – which at most generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Claims 4 and 11 describes wherein the offline departure control system is also in data communication with one or more workstations located at the 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 self-service terminal), in conjunction with the use of the self-service terminal in its ordinary capacity to perform basic data communication functions (“the 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.
Therefore, claims 1-15 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 1-6 and 8-15 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).
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 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”),
wherein the offline departure control system is configured 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:
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, generate 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 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the generation of an offline record/database as taught by Jann 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.
Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
subsequently update the offline snapshot based on newly received passenger operation data received from the 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)
Claim 2: Huntley/Jann 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 self-service terminals; and for a particular status request, respond to the sending self-service terminal with an instruction for the 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 3: Huntley/Jann teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
a passenger operation corresponding to passenger check-in (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”), and wherein at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a kiosk for enabling self-service passenger check-in (Huntley: ¶ 0042 showing local self-service check-in kiosks may be used to allow check in),
and/or a passenger operation corresponding to a luggage drop service for passenger luggage, and wherein at least one self-service terminal corresponds to a luggage drop station for enabling self-service passenger luggage drop
Note: Also see the § 112(b) rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 4: Huntley/Jann 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 the 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 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 teach claim 1. Huntley, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein: an online snapshot and/or 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 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). Huntley further teaches: “preferably wherein the method is implemented by an offline departure control system 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), although this is considered an optional limitation as discussed in the note below.
Note: As per the claim objection above, the “preferably” included limitations are treated as optional 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. The examiner notes that as per MPEP 2173.05(d), “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.” While the examiner does not find the claim to be indefinite, the examiner treats this as an optional limitation.
Claim 9: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 10: See the rejection of claim 3 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 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 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 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 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 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), and further in view of US 20140358594 A1 to Antonakakis.
Claim 7: Huntley/Jann teach claim 1. 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 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 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.”
Conclusion
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628