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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending. Claims 20 and 21 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Final Office Action dated 01/12/2026 (“FOA”) “overgeneralizes” the claims and does not evaluate the claim as a whole under a reasonable reading. This argument is unfounded, and examiner disagrees. The FOA follows the patent eligibility analysis set for in the Alice/Mayo test and, after establishing the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole, proceeds to first determines whether the claim falls under one of the enumerated four statutory categories of subject matter. Next the FOA properly analyzes whether the claim recites or is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. The FOA properly lists the claim limitations that recite an abstract idea, and notes for the record that the features or elements in brackets in the analysis are considered “additional elements” that are evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business 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; estimating or predicting 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], and 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]. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting 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 updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. 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. This is the proper analysis under Step 2A Prong One. Next, the FOA proceeds to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two and concludes from the analysis that 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, 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 analysis specifically analyses the additional elements individually and in combination with the recited elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. There is no limitation present in the applicant’s claim indicative that the additional element (or combination of elements) integrates the exception into a practical application. The additional elements amount to 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, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, both of which the courts have identified has not integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis in the FOA finally proceeds to Step 2B, wherein the FOA indicates that 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. The dewar was also evaluated as an additional element. 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. If applicant just wants to see the structural details listed, they’re now listed with the dewar, but the outcome is the same. The FOA did not overgeneralize the claims and the claims were evaluated as a while. This assertion that the claims were overgeneralized appears to be the result of applicant disagreeing with the outcome of the analysis, however, disagreeing with the outcome does not mean that the analysis was not conducted properly. Applicant provides no proof to dispute that the claims were not evaluated as whole, this the argument is merely conclusory and unfounded.
Applicant argues that the independent claims are not properly classifiable as a mental process. Examiner disagrees. The invention and claims are drawn to 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 claim recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting 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 updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. 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 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). Also, as a further note, the transmitting and receiving data over a network also amounts to insignificant extra solution activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. 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). The claims recite a mental process.
Applicant argues that the independent claims are not properly classifiable as certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. 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)). As applicant indicates in their remarks, the independent claims recite a system that monitors and predicts physical failure of physical cryogenic shippers based on sensed physical conditions during transport and updates the model based on post-delivery outcomes”. 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; estimating or predicting 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], and 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]. The claims demonstrate commercial tracking in a shipping business/process, as also indicated in [0004] of the specification. There is no evidence of an improvement to computers or technology in the invention nor claims, but at best improvement in the commercial shipping process which amounts to an improvement in the judicial exception itself.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the mathematical concepts limitations into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The claim 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. No further details are present regarding the model or algorithm outside of the appearance that it is being leveraged to predict outcomes. 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 finally argues that the ordered combination provides significantly more than the judicial exceptions because of lack of a prior art rejection, which they are interesting as the claims are not merely well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”). Examiner disagrees. First, whether the claims are WURC, 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 include: Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, both of which are concluded in the applicant’s claims. Further, 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).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 22 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 22 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore, claims 1-19 and 22 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting 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 updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. 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; estimating or predicting 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], and 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]. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting 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 updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. 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 of detecting or measuring sensor data; storing the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data in real-time; estimating or predicting 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 at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; comparing 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 machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison; [a display] configured to output to the user a 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 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 the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data; estimating or predicting 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 at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; and outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; and a [display] configured to output to the user a 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 also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring sensor data; storing the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data; estimating or predicting 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 at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; comparing 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; updating the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison; and a [display] configured to output to the user a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the machine learning algorithm used to perform the estimation or prediction of the probability of failure. 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 22 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 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 22 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, explicitly discloses 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 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 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 overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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 3628
Prosecution Insights