Amadeus S.A.S
[2016] APO 56
•17 August 2016
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Amadeus S.A.S [2016] APO 56
Patent Application 2012206666
Title:Method for auditing a bag drop in a transportation departure control system
Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S
Hearing officer: P M Spann - Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Decision Date: 17 August 2016
Hearing Date: 24 June 2016 by written submissions
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – method of improving security in a self-service check-in system – abstract idea or mere scheme – no patentable subject matter disclosed – application refused.
Representation: Patent applicant: Dr M Summerfield, Watermark.
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2012206666
Title:Method for auditing a bag drop in a transportation departure control system
Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S
Date of Decision: 17 August 2016
DECISION
Patent application 2012206666 is refused pursuant to subsection 49(2) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter concerns examiner’s objections in respect of the application and whether I should exercise the Commissioner’s power to refuse the application under subsection 49(2) of the Patents Act 1990.
Background
Patent application 2012206666 is a PCT application. It was filed as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT/EP2012/050255) on 9 January 2012. Following entry to the national phase it has been the subject of three adverse examination reports, each including objections that the subject matter claimed is not a manner of manufacture. Several statements of proposed amendments have been filed, but, since the examiner’s objections were maintained, the applicant requested to be heard on the basis of written submissions.
The applicant filed its submission on 24 June 2016 together with a further statement of proposed amendments.
I note that the provisions of subregulation 13.4(1)(g) to extend the period for acceptance to 3 months from the date of this decision do not apply to the present application. This is because examination was requested prior to 15 April 2013 and the amendments made by the Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Raising the Bar) Regulation 2013 do not apply (see r 23.26(4) Item38). However an extension of the period for acceptance has been granted to 2 October 2016 based on errors by the applicant in relation to their understanding of the transitional provisions as they apply to this case.
The patent specification
The subject matter of the application concerns auditing of baggage drops in transportation computer systems. A typical implementation of this involves a computerised check in-kiosk where the traveller enters information and obtains a boarding pass. If checking in luggage, baggage labels or tags are generated to be attached to each item to be checked in. The traveller then takes the luggage to a bag-drop station where luggage check-in is completed including weighing and other checks.
The specification indicates that security measures are taken to ensure that the person who dropped the bags is the person travelling and identifies fingerprint scanning as one known method of achieving this. However it suggests that this is expensive and potentially unreliable. Without such identification there is the potential for a person to make a fraudulent bag drop if they have knowledge of the reservation number of the real passenger. This is because in existing systems the dropping of an additional bag for that reservation does not trigger a warning.
Consequently the specification proposes to improve the security of bag-drop processes by recording the number of bags identified at check-in and comparing that to the number of bags dropped. Further features described include the coding and protection of the bag number including its incorporation into a physical or virtual boarding pass.
The claims as most recently proposed to be amended are as follows. The applicant’s submissions suggest these “narrow the scope of the claims as a whole, but remain directed to substantially the same invention”:
1. A method for improving security of a self-service check-in apparatus at an airport, the method comprising:
receiving, at a first self-service check-in apparatus, a first bag drop request that relates to a travel reservation for a passenger and that indicates a first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a first bag drop;
in response to the first bag drop request being received:
generating, at the first self-service check-in apparatus, a first boarding pass associated with a travel reservation for the passenger comprising first baggage data indicative of the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop;
generating, at the first self-service check-in apparatus, a number of first baggage tags that is equal to the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop, wherein each of the first baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop;
receiving at a first collection device of computerized baggage collection equipment the bags for the first bag drop; and
storing, by at least one data processor of the transportation departure control system, the first number of bags correlated with the travel reservation in a database of a server;
after the first boarding pass is generated and the first number of bags is stored:
receiving, at a second self-service check-in apparatus, a second bag drop request that relates to the travel reservation for the passenger and that indicates a second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a second bag drop; and
in response to the second bag drop request for the travel reservation being received:
generating, at the second self-service check-in apparatus, a second boarding pass associated with the travel reservation for the passenger comprising second baggage data indicative of an updated number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the travel reservation, the updated number of bags being a sum of the first number and the second number;
generating, at the second self-service check-in apparatus, a number of second baggage tags that is equal to the second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop, wherein each of the second baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop;
receiving at a second collection device of computerized baggage collection equipment the bags for the second bag drop;
storing, by the at least one data processor of the transportation departure control system, the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation in the database of the server; and
after the second boarding pass is generated and the updated number of bags is stored:
reading, by a boarding pass reader of computerized boarding equipment the first baggage data from the first boarding pass;
in response to the first baggage data being read from the first boarding pass:
retrieving, by the at least one data processor, the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation from the database of the server; and
detecting an occurrence of a fraudulent bag drop corresponding to the travel reservation by comparing, by the at least one data processor, the updated number of bags retrieved from the database with the first number of bags indicated by the first baggage data read from the first boarding pass.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
in response to detecting the occurrence of the fraudulent bag drop corresponding to the travel reservation, generating a warning message about the fraudulent bag drop detected at the computerized boarding equipment.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the first baggage data is integrated in a carrier section of the first boarding pass, and the second baggage data is integrated in a carrier section of the second boarding pass.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein at least one of the boarding pass and the second boarding pass is a dematerialized boarding pass.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein generating the first boarding pass and the second boarding pass respectively comprise encoding the first number of bags and the updated number of bags into a first encoded number of bags and a second encoded number of bags and the first baggage data and the second baggage data respectively comprise the first and second encoded numbers of bags.
6. The method of claim 5 further comprising integrating the first encoded number of bags and the second encoded number of bags into respective first and second barcodes visible on the first and second boarding passes.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein the first and second barcodes are each signed with a private key and the reading of the first and second baggage data comprises decrypting the respective signed barcodes with a public key associated with the private key.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising taking a picture of each bag for the second bag drop received at the second collection device when the bags for the second bag drop are received at the second collection device.
9. The method of claim 8 further comprising, in response to the fraudulent bag drop being detected, displaying the picture of each bag for the second bag drop.
10. A transportation departure control system comprising:
a self-service check-in apparatus connected to a communication network, the self service check-in apparatus configured to:
in response to receiving a first bag drop request that relates to a travel reservation for a passenger and that indicates a first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a first bag drop:
generate a first boarding pass associated with a travel reservation for the passenger comprising first baggage data indicative of the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop;
generate a number of first baggage tags that is equal to the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop, wherein each of the first baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop; and
in response to receiving, after the first boarding pass is generated, a second bag drop request that relates to the travel reservation for the passenger and that indicates a second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a second bag drop:
generate a second boarding pass associated with the travel reservation for the passenger comprising second baggage data indicative of an updated number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the travel reservation, wherein the updated number of bags is equal to a sum of the first number of bags and the second number of bags generate a number of second baggage tags that is equal to the second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop, wherein each of the second baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop;
computerized baggage collection equipment that is connected to the communication network and comprises a collection device for receiving dropped bags, the computerized baggage collection equipment configured to:
receive the bags for the first bag drop; and
receive the bags for the second bag drop;
computerized boarding equipment connected to the communication network and that comprises a boarding pass reader configured to read the baggage data from boarding passes;
a server connected to the communication network, the server comprising at least one data processor and being configured to:
in response to the first bag drop request being received at the self-service check-in apparatus, store, in a database, the first number of bags correlated with the travel reservation;
in response to the first bag drop request being received at the self-service check-in apparatus, store, in the database, the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation; and
in response to the first baggage data being read from the first boarding pass with the boarding pass reader of the computerized boarding equipment after the second boarding pass is generated and the updated number of bags is stored:
retrieve the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation from the database, and detect an occurrence of a fraudulent bag drop corresponding to the travel reservation by comparing the updated number of bags retrieved from the database with the first number of bags indicated by the first baggage data read from the first boarding pass.
11. A computer program product comprising: at least one computer readable storage medium including instructions that, upon execution by a plurality of processors, cause the processors to:
in response to a first bag drop request being received at a first self-service checkin apparatus, the first bag drop request relating to a travel reservation for a passenger and indicating a first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a first bag drop:
generate a first boarding pass associated with a travel reservation for the passenger comprising first baggage data indicative of the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop;
generate a number of first baggage tags that is equal to the first number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop, wherein each of the first baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the first bag drop; and
store the first number of bags correlated with the travel reservation in a database of a server;
in response to a second bag drop request being received at a second self-service check-in apparatus, the second bag drop request relating to the travel reservation for the passenger and indicating a second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for a second bag drop:
generate a second boarding pass associated with the travel reservation for the passenger comprising second baggage data indicative of an updated number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the travel reservation, the updated number of bags being a sum of the first number and the second number;
generate a number of second baggage tags that is equal to the second number of bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop, wherein each of the second baggage tags is configured to be placed on one of the bags to be dropped for the passenger for the second bag drop; and
store the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation in the database of the server; and
in response to the first baggage data being read from the first boarding pass with the boarding pass reader of the computerized boarding equipment after the second boarding pass is generated and the updated number of bags is stored:
retrieve the updated number of bags correlated with the travel reservation from the database of the server; and
detect an occurrence of a fraudulent bag drop corresponding to the travel reservation by comparing, by the at least one data processor, the updated number of bags retrieved from the database with the first number of bags indicated by the first baggage data read from the first boarding pass.”
The detailed description indicates that the alleged invention can be implemented by computer hardware and software and can include a server where processing of data takes place (by one or more computer devices) and this preferably communicates via a network with at least one traveller interface device.
10. While being said not to be limited to any particular travel application, the description then provides a general outline of equipment in an airport environment by which the process can be implemented. This can include computerised self-service check-in kiosks, baggage collection equipment and boarding equipment. In one embodiment the number of bags is input by the traveller at a check-in kiosk as part of the check-in process and results in the issuing of a boarding pass having the number of bags encoded. The number of bags is also detected by the baggage collection equipment and compared with the number at check-in.
11. Another person with knowledge of the traveller’s reservation may also be able to drop further bags and may be given a revised boarding pass. However when the traveller presents the original boarding pass at boarding the discrepancy between the original number of bags and the number of bags dropped will be detected and appropriate action taken.
12. The specification also indicates a number of alternative options. For example check-in might be via the internet with the boarding pass issued to the traveller’s mobile phone.
The examiner’s objections
13. It is unnecessary to consider the examiner’s reports in detail. It is sufficient to say that the examiner has objected and maintained that the claims do not define a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act. The objection in the third report stated inter alia that:
“It is clear in the claims as proposed to be amended that the steps are to be performed by the computer, however it is not sufficient to meet the requirement of manner of manufacture that the machine be an essential feature of the invention as claimed (see Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150: [117]). Research Affiliates makes clear that it is the substance of an invention that must be directed to patentable subject matter and that an abstract scheme that is merely implemented in a computer, no matter how essential to the claimed invention that implementation may be, is not a manner of manufacture (Research Affiliates: [118]). It is clear from the description that the invention for which protection is sought is concerned with a standard computer using standard internet network implementing an abstract idea or scheme.”
14. I note that the examiners reports predated the Full Courts decision in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (RPL).
The Applicants submissions
15. The applicant’s submissions are helpful and address the points made by the examiner by stating:
“59. It is clear from the discussions in Section V above that the specification describes the implementation via modifications and enhancements to existing technical systems of an advantageous and unconventional security procedure. Furthermore, the specification makes clear that the invention resides in this implementation, and not merely in the underlying security 'protocols'. This implementation is tied to the specific environment of the systems used within the global travel industry, and installed at numerous airports around the world. This context constrains the implementation, such that technical ingenuity is required to devise practical security enhancements that can actually be deployed within these systems.
60. Turning to claim 1, on a proper construction the claim may be summarised as comprising at least the following features:
•a self-service check-in apparatus which receives a first bag drop request relating to a particular travel reservation, and which is configured/programmed to respond by generating a first boarding pass which includes data indicative of the number of bags dropped, along with baggage tags for each of the bags;
•a collection device which collects the bags;
•a transportation data control system which is configured/programmed to store the number of bags dropped;
•another (or possibly the same) self-service check-in apparatus which receives, at some subsequent time, a second bag drop request relating to the same travel reservation, and which is configured/programmed to respond by generating a second boarding pass which includes data indicative of an updated number of bags dropped, along with baggage tags for each of the newly-dropped bags;
•a collection device which collects the additional bags;
•the transportation data control system which is configured/programmed to store the updated number of bags dropped; and
•computerised boarding equipment, including a boarding pass reader which is configured/programmed to retrieve the number of dropped bags recorded on a boarding pass, and to compare this number with the number stored by the transportation data control system.
61. A mismatch between the retrieved and stored numbers indicates a fraudulent bag drop, i.e. additional bags have subsequently been dropped in relation to the travel reservation, but this is not reflected in the data retrieved from the boarding pass.
62. Each of the bolded elements in the above summary corresponds with a specific hardware and/or software module that is specifically programmed in order to implement a component part of the invention. These technical parts thus work together, as a combination, to implement the inventive system for improving airport security. It is submitted that ingenuity resides - and is clearly said to lie within the specification - in this combination, which comprises a patentable technological innovation, and is not at all a business innovation. The hardware components of the system are specific, not generic, modules, that are deployed within airports, and which place technical constraints upon the invention that must be addressed via technical means. It is further submitted that, in the context of the present invention, none of the claimed functionality is implemented via 'standard operation of generic computers with generic software' (RPL Central at [110]). As has been explained, the systems in which the invention is implemented are highly specialised and specific to airport operational systems.
63. The applicant therefore submits that claim 1 is, in fact, directed to a technological innovation, and not to a business innovation. It is not said that the ingenuity of the inventors resides in the general concept of 'auditing' bag drops, or in any change or improvement to a 'business protocol'. What has been contributed to the art is a practical method of improving airport security within the existing technical context of airport operational systems, including self-service check-in apparatus, transportation data control systems, and computerised boarding equipment. This is the invention to which the claim is directed, by way of a series of concrete technical steps.
64. The applicant's primary submission is therefore that claim 1, along with claim 10 (directed to a transportation data control system having corresponding integers) and claim 11 (directed to a corresponding computer program product), and all of the dependent claims, are directed to a technological innovation, and not a business innovation, and therefore define a manner of manufacture without the need to proceed to the step of considering whether the ingenuity in the claimed invention is said to lie in the technical implementation.
65. However, even if the claims are considered to be directed to a 'business protocol', the applicant submits that they meet the requirement of reciting an invention in which ingenuity resides in the technical implementation, i.e. in the 'computerisation' of the method.
66. In independent claims 1, 10 and 11, for example, a number of elements are recited, as discussed above, that involve more than 'standard operation of generic computers with generic software to implement a business method'. The specification includes sufficient instruction to inform the PSA, who is familiar with the travel industry information systems involved, of the programming required (e.g. in modification of the self-service check-in apparatus, transportation data control systems, and computerised boarding equipment) to put the invention into effect. This is not a case, such as was considered by the Full Court in RPL Central, in which no information is provided beyond the 'idea' of performing the steps of the agreement method as set out in the claim. It is clear from the claims, for example, what data is received and processed, what functions are performed by the programming applied to the hardware components, what information is stored (on boarding passes and within the database), and how that information is retrieved and employed in order to provide the enhanced security checking.”
Discussion
16. The principles of law to be considered in this case appear not to be controversial at least in substance. I therefore do not intend to discuss the authorities in detail but note the analysis included in the recent decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49. After discussing the relevant cases including RPL the delegate, Dr Barker, at [35] helpfully sets out a summary of relevant considerations stating:
“35. I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
•there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
•is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
•does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
•does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
•does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
•can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
•does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
•is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
•is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
•does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and
•does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”
17. The applicant’s submissions set out a process for the application of the law from RPL (including a flow chart) however without reaching a conclusion on the validity of that approach it seems doubtful that this area of patent law can be constrained to such formulations. At [98], their Honours stated:
“It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”
18. In looking at the substance of what is claimed the applicant agrees that this is determined from a consideration of the specification as a whole in light of the relevant common general knowledge. For this purpose the applicant submits that the disclosure is to be understood from the perspective of “a computer programmer, software developer or software engineer with specific knowledge and experience of the information technology systems used in the global travel industry”. This is followed by an attempt to categorise the claimed invention as the technical implementation of security protocols in a computing system or “the ‘computerisation’ of the method”.
19. I cannot agree with this analysis. The problem addressed by the application is clearly the potential for security lapses in the use of bag drops and the solution is a new security protocol involving an audit of bag numbers recorded in the check-in process. While implementing the system may require computer equipment and programming, primarily the addressee is a security expert not a computer programmer. The fact is that very little is said at all in the specification about the technical implementation of the proposed protocol and nothing about any problem or difficulty of implementation that the alleged invention addresses. Instead there is a very general disclosure and the applicant submits that the specification includes sufficient instruction to inform a person skilled in the art to perform “the programming required (e.g. in modification of the self-service check-in apparatus, transportation data control systems, and computerised boarding equipment) to put the invention into effect”.
20. This seems to me to confirm that the system elements claimed and described were matters of common general knowledge at the earliest priority date of 10 January 2011. I would otherwise have concluded that from my knowledge of Qantas’s QuickCheck and Next Generation Check-In systems that were implemented in Australian domestic terminals before the relevant date. In that light it seems very clear that the substance of the alleged invention is a security protocol or method that is implemented by routine programming of known systems.
21. The applicant then relies on the suggestion of specific programming and specific hardware components referring to RPL at [110]. There the Full Court stated (my highlighting):
“RPL Central does not claim any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. Accordingly, the ingenuity of the inventors must be in the steps of the method itself. The method does utilise the speed and processing power and ability of a computer but there is no suggestion that this is other than a standard operation of generic computers with generic software to implement a business method. This is the method of taking the information as to available criteria for Units of Competency and reframing those criteria into questions and presenting them to, and receiving the answers from, the user together with any documents that the user wishes to append. The reframing of the criteria into questions may be outside the generic use of a computer but the idea of presenting questions, by reframing the criteria, is that: an idea. It is not suggested that the implementation of this idea formed part of the invention. Indeed, no instruction as to such programming is provided in the specification other than the idea of turning the performance criteria provided by the NTIS into a question by prepending or otherwise inserting a form of words.”
22. The Court’s discussion of generic computers and generic software does not amount to a test. It is a relevant consideration and pointer when contemplating the substance of what is claimed and, for example, whether the invention lies in a technical implementation or a business method as such. It does not mean that specific programming or a computer dedicated to a particular function will always import substance when it is not otherwise present. Neither is a debate about whether a computer is generic or specific likely to be helpful in the absence of a real consideration of where the substance of the invention lies.
23. Here what is claimed appears more limited by function than specific harware. It appears general purpose computers could be programmed to perform the functions specified and fall within the scope of the claims. The most significant point however is that while asserting a technical contribution in the use of that apparatus, the applicant fails to identify any substantive effect or innovation that arises. The computing apparatus is configured and operated in a known way excepting that, in addition to other information, it records data about the number of bags checked-in. This information according to the security protocol allows auditing of the bag number and produces an improvement in travel security.
24. In my opinion the substantive effect or contribution of the claimed invention lies in this outcome. The contribution is not technical and does not involve the solution of a technical problem. It relies on computing apparatus as an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea. Therefore I consider the substance of the claimed subject matter to be an abstract idea or mere scheme.
25. The Full Court in Research Affiliates noted a degree of consistency between the Australian approach to patentability in respect of inventions of the present type and that taken in the United States (and UK). While not determinative, I observe that the United States Patent Office has issued a final rejection of the equivalent US application stating that “the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more” and “None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination, provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.”.
26. The approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) is different in that it will look at the technical character of such claims and will not consider features, which do not contribute to the technical character of a claim, or do not contribute “either independently or in combination with other features, to the solution of a technical problem”, to be relevant for assessing the presence of an inventive step. Nevertheless the EPO examiners comments in objecting to the subject matter of the equivalent European application are interesting in that they go to the question of whether a technical contribution is involved. The examiner states:
“The application does not describe any technical interaction between the apparent non-technical features and the technical features presented in the two points above, besides the fact that a transport departure control system is used to support the method. Naturally, electronic means are "operated" for input, presentation and storage (or aggregation) of information. Nor does the examining division identify any implicit technical inter-relationship, besides the possible/apparent automation of the control method. That is, the features of the method do not interact in any way with the group of remaining features of the claim (the transport departure control system) to alter the technical character of that system.”
27. While made under different statutory frameworks these findings tend to support the conclusion I have reached on the nature of the subject matter in the present application.
Conclusion
28. I have found that the claims are not directed to a manner of manufacture. Furthermore, I do not consider that patentable subject matter has been disclosed in the specification and that consequently the application should be refused.
P M Spann
Deputy Commissioner of Patents
0
0