DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite the limitation "the transportation management server.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-9, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
(a) obtaining accommodation information of a customer from accommodation information that is configured to allow flags indicating delivery status of baggage to be added;
(b) inquire about the delivery status of baggage addressed to the customer;
(c) if the delivery status indicates that delivery has been completed, adding a delivery completion flag to accommodation information of the customer;
(d) when the customer checks in, referring to the accommodation information of the customer, and determining whether or not baggage addressed to the customer has been delivered based on the delivery completion flag; and
(e) if the delivery completion flag is added to the accommodation information of the customer, outputting a notification that informs that delivery of the baggage addressed to the customer has been completed.
These limitations taken together qualify as a method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for coordinating and tracking the delivery of baggage to traveling people via a service provider (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, following rules or instructions). Additionally, it recites record-keeping steps that could be performed mentally and with pen and paper (i.e., managing accommodation information of a customer and delivery statuses/flags).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020)—business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their baggage; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of a baggage delivery, then displaying the results; Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde, 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—communicating information about a mail object using a personalized marking, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as communicating information about a delivery object using accommodations and customer information; Smart Sys. Innovations v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., mass transit) and data collection related to such transactions, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., hotel baggage delivery) and data collection related to such transactions).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (memory that is configured to store instructions, processor that is configured to execute the instructions, non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program, computer, database, transportation management server—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (memory that is configured to store instructions, processor that is configured to execute the instructions, non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program, computer, database, transportation management server—see published Specification ¶¶ 0029, 38-44 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the same abstract idea identified above without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general link technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e. generic computers).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general link to technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. They do not introduce any new additional elements to be analyzed here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zur, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0188431 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Zur teaches a baggage delivery management apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (¶ 0059) to perform:
(a) obtaining accommodation information of a customer from an accommodation information database that is configured to allow flags indicating delivery status of baggage to be added (¶¶ 0026, 49);
(b) access the transportation management server to inquire about the delivery status of baggage addressed to the customer (¶¶ 0026, 31);
(c) if the delivery status indicates that delivery has been completed, adding a delivery completion flag to accommodation information of the customer (¶ 0049);
(d) when the customer checks in, referring to the accommodation information of the customer, and determining whether or not baggage addressed to the customer has been delivered based on the delivery completion flag (¶¶ 0026, 49; see also the process as described by ¶¶ 0036-46); and
(e) if the delivery completion flag is added to the accommodation information of the customer, outputting a notification that informs that delivery of the baggage addressed to the customer has been completed (¶¶ 0031, 34, 49).
As per claim 4, Zur teaches a baggage delivery method comprising: steps implementing the functionality of analogous claim 1 (see citations above).
As per claim 7, Zur teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform: steps implementing the functionality of analogous claim 1 (¶ 0059, see also citations above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zur in view of Ananda, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0199403 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 2, Zur teaches claim 1 as above. Zur further teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: after requesting to deliver the baggage of the customer (¶ 0028), obtaining the delivery status of the baggage addressed to the customer from the transport management server at predetermined time intervals, and determining whether the delivery status of the baggage addressed to the customer indicates that delivery has been completed (¶¶ 0031, 34, 49; see also ¶¶ 0024, 29—predetermined time intervals).
Zur does not explicitly teach the delivery is by a transport company; which is taught by Ananda (¶¶ 0015, 23). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Ananda—namely, to transport the baggage over longer distances. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation services. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. This can also be viewed as a substitution of the transport company in Ananda for the hotel employee in Zur, where both are disclosed in the art as entities that can perform baggage delivery, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the substitution would not yield any unpredictable results.
As per claim 3, Zur in view of Ananda teaches claim 2 as above. Zur further teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: when delivery of the baggage to the customer is completed, the delivery completion flag is turned ON (¶ 0049).
As per claims 5-6 and 8-9, Zur teaches claims 4 and 7 as above. Zur in view of Ananda teaches the limitations of analogous claims 2-3 (see citations and obviousness rationale above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bielefeldt, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0300851 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to delivery completion flags.
Rüger, Baggage handling, Sustainable Rail Transport: Proceedings of RailNewcastle Talks, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pgs. 93-112 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to baggage delivery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/DANIEL VETTER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights