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 and 11 are amended. Claims 20-22 are canceled. Claims 1-19 and 23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification describes how the invention is related to predicting when a dewar will fail and discloses how in the shipping business, certain types of contents and cargo required temperature controlled shipment to avoid degradation or loss (Spec. [0004]). The standard procedure in verifying the shipper’s functionality for the next shipment or payload involves evaluating the dynamic hold time of the shipper and determining whether the shipper needs to be retired. Applicant discloses that the shipment may fail in multiple ways including poor thermal performance, failure due to mishandling, etc. and merely measuring the dynamic hold time is not enough because does not account for these types of failures (Spec. [0006]). Applicant states that, there is a need to an method, system, device ro apparatus (such as theirs) to improve the prediction of the failure of a dry vapor shipper to better anticipate when a dry vapor shipper mail fail (see Spec. [0007]). The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business or process (as applicant states) and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., business relations, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations such as storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; obtaining, during a present shipment of [the dewar], at least one of maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time, estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail during at least one of (i) the present shipment of [the dewar] or (ii) a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on at least one of the maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time and the dewar failure model, outputting a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment, comparing abarticular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper to post-delivery status information associated with the shipper, updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison, and providing an indication whether the specific shipper should be deployed for subsequent shipment. The above-mentioned limitations, along with limitations related to the detection and measurement of sensor data and overall monitoring of the dewar, also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the dewar failure model which appears to be an algorithm. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims do not explicitly recite the examples given for certain methods of organizing human activity (“CMOHA”), examiner notes that the examples in the MPEP are simply examples. The Office Action has identified the limitations that directly correspond to commercial interactions, business relations, and following rules or instructions. The identified claims recite the following of rules of instructions in the shipping process by identifying certain steps taken in monitoring the shipment, and making a decision on whether a shipper may be used in a subsequent shipment based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims demonstrate commercial tracking in a shipping business/process, as also indicated in [0004] of the specification. Applicant appears to suggest that the claimed invention cannot fall within an abstract idea grouping because it does not precisely match the examples provided. This argument is not persuasive. The examples set forth are illustrative only and are not intended to be exhaustive or limiting. A claim need not mirror a listed example verbatim to fall within a recognized category of abstract ideas. Rather the inquiry is whether the abstract idea set forth or described in the claim is of the same nature as the concepts identified within the grouping.
Applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a mental process because the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind is unpersuasive. The limitations clearly describe the observation and evaluation of data pertaining to the dewar, and making a judgment or opinion (on the probability of failure) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite a mental process. The mental-steps inquiry under Step 2A Prong One is not “could a human do this at the same speed/precision.” It is whether the claim limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the applicant’s invention, the use of a physical dewar, monitoring devices, and sensors do not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. These are additional elements evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B to determine whether these additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more, respectively. The shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, dewar failure model, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). The dewar and its structural detail does not change the outcome of the patent eligibility analysis. The dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use. The dewar is not the applicant’s invention, instead it is the predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business or process, which is further highlighted by the limitations detailing the monitoring or tracking the conditions of the dewar through shipment to predict whether it will fail (or not). The dewar having an outer wall and an inner wall, a vapor plug, and other structural details of the shipper/dewar does not change the outcome. Also, the recitation of generic computer components (the first non-transitory machine-readable memory and non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores the dewar failure model, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors) does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. This is the case in the applicant’s invention. The additional elements of the computing components are recited at a high-level of generality performing limitations that correspond to the judicial exception(s). A human mind very well can perform the observation and evaluation of data, and implementing a decision (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. It is not required that the human mind be able to perform the claimed steps in the same manner, at the same scale, or with the same speed as a computer. Regarding the use of the dewar failure model/machine learning algorithm, the alleged “retraining” or updating of the model also does not improve computers or technology. Although this improvements analysis is a consideration under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, examiner notes here that the recent Federal Circuit case Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 holds that "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18), and "The requirements that the machine learning model be 'iteratively trained' or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 12. In the applicant’s invention, the machine learning algorithm is a generic machine learning algorithm and does not improve machine learning technology nor computers. No further details are present regarding the model or algorithm outside of the appearance that it is being leveraged to predict outcomes.
For the reasons set forth above, a judicial exception is set forth or described in the claims under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of shippers comprising a dewar (the dewar has the following structural details: a vapor plug and a double walled flask that has an inner wall and an outer wall, the vapor plug configured to at least partially seal an opening of the dewar during transport), a monitoring device, a first sensor, a first non-transitory machine-readable memory, a network access device, a non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores a dewar failure model, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors. The additional elements of the first non-transitory machine-readable memory and non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores the dewar failure model, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, dewar failure model, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that the specification contrasts their system with prior approaches that only evaluate dynamic hold time and not other failure mechanisms is an argument in novelty or obviousness, not eligibility. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP §2106.05). Further, this argument does not represent a technical improvement in computers or technology, but at best, only represents an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. Here, the additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, both of which the Courts have indicated does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In applicant’s claimed invention, the computer functionality or operations do not change. The computer does not run or process faster, nor provide improvements to bandwidth or latency (for example). The business process is merely implemented on the computer which is an improvement in the business process at best. This is an improvement in the judicial exception: business relations, following rules or instructions, the observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (the monitoring). Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter as evidenced by the specification and claims. . It is also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are at best an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues that the technical details define how the failure model is constructed and updated to address specific technical issues in machine learning (e.g., multicollinearity) in the contest of cryogenic shipper failure prediction and thus is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner disagrees. First, the machine learning algorithm is a generic well-known algorithm according to the specification. It’s conventional in itself. Applicant is not using a newly invented machine learning technique, not improving machine learning technology. Instead, applicant is merely leveraging existing machine learning to improve their business shipping process (improvement in the judicial exception) in terms of predicant when a shipper will fail and should not be reused in a subsequent shipment. As stated earlier, the recent Federal Circuit case Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 holds that "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18), and "The requirements that the machine learning model be 'iteratively trained' or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 12. In the applicant’s invention, the machine learning algorithm is a generic machine learning algorithm and does not improve machine learning technology nor computers. No further details are present regarding the model or algorithm outside of the appearance that it is being leveraged to predict outcomes. Additionally, "Finally, the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 15. In machine learning multicollinear behavior is well-known and is merely when predictor variable are closely related to each other. Applicant is also reminded that, under step 2B, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05)
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
Thus, since the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 1-19 and 23 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.
Claims 1-19 and 23 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore, claims 1-19 and 23 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations: detect or measure first sensor data; store the first sensor data collected by the [first sensor] during transit of [the dewar]; store a [dewar failure model], the [dewar failure model] configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints, obtain, during a present shipment of [the dewar], at least one of maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time; estimate or predict, during the present shipment of [the dewar], a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail during at least one of (i) the present shipment of [the dewar] or (ii) a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on at least one of the maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time and the [dewar failure model], output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar], compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a [specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with the [specific shipper], update the [dewar failure model] in real-time based on the comparison, and provide an indication whether the [specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] should be deployed for the subsequent shipment. The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business or process and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., business relations, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations such as storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; obtaining, during a present shipment of [the dewar], at least one of maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time, estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail during at least one of (i) the present shipment of [the dewar] or (ii) a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on at least one of the maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time and the dewar failure model, outputting a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment, comparing abarticular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper to post-delivery status information associated with the shipper, updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison, and providing an indication whether the specific shipper should be deployed for subsequent shipment. The Office Action has identified the limitations that directly correspond to commercial interactions, business relations, and following rules or instructions. The identified claims recite the following of rules of instructions in the shipping process by identifying certain steps taken in monitoring the shipment, and making a decision on whether a shipper may be used in a subsequent shipment based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims demonstrate commercial tracking in a shipping business/process, as also indicated in [0004] of the specification. The above-mentioned limitations, along with limitations related to the detection and measurement of sensor data and overall monitoring of the dewar, also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the dewar failure model which appears to be an algorithm. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the claim features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of shippers comprising a dewar (the dewar has the following structural details: a vapor plug and a double walled flask that has an inner wall and an outer wall, the vapor plug configured to at least partially seal an opening of the dewar during transport), a monitoring device, a first sensor, a first non-transitory machine-readable memory, a network access device, a non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores a dewar failure model, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors. The additional elements of the first non-transitory machine-readable memory and non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores the dewar failure model, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, dewar failure model, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation(s) of outputting the list of probabilities or likelihoods that [the dewar] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The claim recites limitation(s) further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a display and the dewar. The display is a computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (shipping items in transit). Accordingly, in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitation(s) of a [user interface] configured to receive user inputs that indicates whether [the dewar] failed before, during or after the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; wherein the [one or more processors] is configured to: update [the dewar failure model] based on a user input and the first sensor data in real-time. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a user interface, one or more processors, and the dewar failure model. The additional elements of the user interface, dewar failure model, and one or more processors amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of the dewar failure model additionally amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitation(s) that the first sensor includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor and the first sensor data includes at least one of a temperature within the dewar, shocks or vibrations to the dewar or a pressure within the dewar. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites that the additional element of the first sensor includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). The additional element(s) amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation of estimating or predicting the probability or the likelihood that [the dewar] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar using a boosted decision tree algorithm. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The boosted tree algorithm amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The additional element of the dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (shipping items in transit). Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitations of measuring or detecting second sensor data, and that the first sensor data is a temperature within the dewar and the second sensor is a pressure sensor and the second sensor data is a pressure within the dewar. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the dewar, a second sensor being a pressure sensor, and first sensor being a temperature sensor. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations detect or measure sensor data; store the sensor data collected by the [sensor] during transit of [the dewar]; obtain, during a present shipment of [the dewar], at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data received in real-time; estimate or predict, during the present shipment of [the dewar], a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail during at least one of (i) the present shipment of [the dewar] or (ii) a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on at least one of the maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time and the [dewar failure model], output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar], compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a [specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with the [specific shipper], update the [dewar failure model] in real-time based on the comparison, provide an indication whether the [specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] should be deployed for the subsequent shipment, output to the user the list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business or process and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., business relations, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations such as obtaining, during a present shipment of [the dewar], at least one of maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time, estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail during at least one of (i) the present shipment of [the dewar] or (ii) a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on at least one of the maintenance information or the first sensor data received in real-time and the dewar failure model, outputting a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment, comparing abarticular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper to post-delivery status information associated with the shipper, updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison, providing an indication whether the specific shipper should be deployed for subsequent shipment, output to the user the list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The Office Action has identified the limitations that directly correspond to commercial interactions, business relations, and following rules or instructions. The identified claims recite the following of rules of instructions in the shipping process by identifying certain steps taken in monitoring the shipment, and making a decision on whether a shipper may be used in a subsequent shipment based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims demonstrate commercial tracking in a shipping business/process, as also indicated in [0004] of the specification. The above-mentioned limitations, along with limitations related to the detection and measurement of sensor data and overall monitoring of the dewar, also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the dewar failure model which appears to be an algorithm. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the claim features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of shippers comprising a dewar (the dewars has the following structural details: a vapor plug and a double walled flask that has an inner wall and an outer wall, the vapor plug configured to at least partially seal an opening of the dewar during transport), a monitoring device, a sensor, a first non-transitory machine-readable memory, a network access device, one or more computing devices, one or more processors, and a display. The additional elements of the first memory, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, monitoring device, and display are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the limitations of storing a dewar failure model; estimating or predicting the probability or the likelihood that the dewar will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar further based on the [dewar failure model]. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The dewar failure model appears to be an algorithm and amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites the limitations of receiving user input that indicates whether [the dewar] failed before during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; and updating the dewar failure model based on the user input in real-time and the at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data in real-time. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a user interface, the one or more processors, and the dewar. The additional elements of a user interface and the one or more processors amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Additionally, the dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (shipping items in transit). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation(s) of measuring or detecting the sensor data, and the sensor data includes at least one of a temperature within the shipper, shocks or vibrations to the shipper or a pressure within the shipper. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a sensor including at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites the limitations that updating the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison includes training a boosted decision tree algorithm for [the specific shipper] independently from [another shipper of the plurality of shippers], and wherein the operations further comprise: determine a shipper-specific threshold probability or likelihood that the specific shipper of the plurality of shippers will fail in a second subsequent shipment based on the trained boosted decision tree algorithm, and compare the shipper-specific predicted probability or likelihood of the specific shipper to the threshold probability or likelihood of the specific shipper. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The boosted tree algorithm amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The additional element of the shippers amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (shipping items in transit). Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 15, 17-19, and 23 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 15, 17-19, and 23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Jurich (2020/0042933) and Kriss (2010/0299278). Jurich discloses the use of mortality models to predict item mortality, such as failure rates and expected remaining lifespan, may be determined based on tracked environmental conditions during transit, such as vibration, temperature, and other conditions. Kriss discloses a shipping container with methods for controlling shipment of a temperature controlled material so that once a customer order is initiated with a customer origin point and a customer destination the shipping container with a phase change material maintaining a sample chamber within the shipping container within a desired temperature range is shipped to the customer origin point where a temperature controlled material is loaded into the sample chamber and then the shipping container is shipped to the customer destination and then returned to a repurposing site and periodic location of the shipping container is tracked by use of a wireless location sensor associated with the shipping container during its shipment. The health of the shipping container, as well as the temperature of its sample chamber, can also be monitored, tracked, recorded and retrieved either during shipment or at the conclusion of a shipping cycle. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, appear to explicitly disclose the amended limitations: estimate or predict a probability or a likelihood that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of the dewar based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar, compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers to post-delivery status information associated with the specific shipper, and update the dear failure model in real-time based on the comparison. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference(s) found that is/are relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Increasing Complexity of Cold Chain Logistics in Clinical Trials and Medicine” (Randall; 2017) which discusses choosing a partner for cryogenic shipments to determine how they test and verify that the dewar will perform for each individual shipment. The publication mentions that to ensure performance, a cryogenic shipper should be requalified after each use, and to ensure a certain level of performance, a dewar fleet should be serialized for individual use tracking. This allows each shipper to be tested and individual performance tracked over time. This serialization and subsequent performance tracking allows shippers with declining or failing hold times to be repaired or retired if needed to best protect those shipments where the payload can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars in catalog value. Another reference found includes the publication “Predictive Monitoring of Heterogeneous Service-Oriented Business Networks: The Transport and Logistics Case” (Metzger, et, al.; 2012) which discloses a cloud- and services-based collaboration and integration platform developing short-term prediction capabilities allowing to proactively manage and mitigate the identified issues in the transport & logistics industry. The references do not appear to explicitly disclose the amended limitations: estimate or predict a probability or a likelihood that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of the dewar based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar, compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers to post-delivery status information associated with the specific shipper, and update the dear failure model in real-time based on the comparison. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights