DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on October 30, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the claim objection, from the previous Office action, is hereby withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 claim rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant disagrees that the claims include certain method(s) of organizing human activity, arguing that the claims instead implement an inventive combination of a distributed ledger technology and a plurality of Internet of Things (IoTs) to automatically detect the route and/or position of a load carrier device using sensor data collected from the load carrier device, such that predetermined operations may be performed automatically by a computing device based on the route and/or position of the load carrier device and information exchanged between the IoTs via the distributed ledger. In response, a claim may recite an abstract idea, such as certain method(s) of organizing human activity, as well as additional elements, such as physical devices. The presence of non-abstract-idea elements does not mean that the claim does not still include an abstract idea. Here, the claims relate to shipping services, which are very often commercial, and commercial interactions are a type of certain method(s) of organizing human activity. It should also be noted that many of the options for generated data in claim 1 relate to commercial interactions, such as order data and banking data.
Applicant further argues that the claims improve computer systems in the field of cyber-logistics and should not be construed as commercial legal interactions or certain methods of organizing human activity. This appears to basically be an argument that the claims invoke the computing or technological improvement consideration under 101 analysis for eligibility. In response, if we interpret the field of “cyber-logistics” to essentially relate to online applications relating to logistics services, this may simply be shipping (which is a business and/or organizational process, not a technical field) performed on generic computing components (which includes online network(s)). According to USPTO 101 guidance, merely performing a judicial exception on generic computing components, without more, does not render a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible. Therefore, merely involving shipping with an online environment, in and of itself, as in “cyber-logistics”, would not automatically render eligibility.
Applicant next argues the claim limitations may, at most, involve an exception, but they do not recite the exception. Examiner disagrees. For example, the 101 rejection for claim 1 presents a list of the elements of the judicial exception, including “detect transport routes and/or a position of at least one load carrier device and goods transported and/or stored thereon” and “the route and/or position evaluation which (i) detects a route and/or a position of the at least one load carrier device based at least on the sensor data and (ii) outputs the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device to at least one triggering”. These elements are drawn from the recited language of claim 1, and directly relate to shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims recite the judicial exception, and do not just “involve” a judicial exception.
Applicant next argues that the claims are eligible via integrating any judicial exception into a practical application, referencing Example Claim 3 of USPTO 101 Example 47. Examiner finds that example to be distinguishable from Applicant’s claims, under the following reasoning. Example Claim 3 begins by training an artificial neural network using a particular way. The trained neural network is then used to detect anomalies in network traffic. From detected anomalies, one or more malicious network packets are determined, along with a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets. The method then drops the one or more malicious network packets in real time and blocks future traffic from the associated source address.
The USPTO’s analysis of Example Claim 3 treats the steps of the method (apart from associated computing component(s)) as abstract idea, from the beginning of the steps up through determining the one or more malicious network packets associated with the anomalies. The “additional elements beyond the abstract idea” are considered to be the computing component(s) plus the remaining steps of the example claim, that is, the detecting of the source address, the dropping of the malicious network packets, and the blocking of the future traffic. Those last three steps of the example claim are considered to be an improvement to a technical field of network intrusion detection. Those last three steps are considered to provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets.
In contrast, looking to the 101 claim rejection of Applicant’s representative claim 1, we see an abstract idea under the subject matter grouping of “Certain method(s) of organizing human activity” including elements/limitations describing: input data relating to shipping being processed; from the input data, the route and/or position of a load carrier device being determined; and, based on the route and/or position of the load carrier, generating particular data. The “additional elements beyond the abstract idea” fall into two groups. The first group are the generic/general-purpose computing system components, which are treated as mere instructions to apply an exception. This includes the computing structure which performs the data processing functions, and includes the distributed ledger. The second group is the element limitation of “the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device”, which was dismissed as insignificant extra-solution activity because the particular type of object being monitored here (the load carrier device) does not add a meaningful limitation to the overall monitoring process, and the other limitation(s) can otherwise be viewed as mere data gathering. Examiner also provided the necessary Berkheimer evidence for the insignificant extra-solution activity limitation for Step 2B of the analysis to show that such limitation was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Because none of the additional elements meaningfully contributed to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, nor added significantly more, Examiner rejected representative independent claim 1 under 101.
In making this argument, Applicant references Applicant’s patent application publication, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0008]-[0009], and [0015]. Applicant references these specification paragraphs to establish alleged improvements which Applicant argues are provided by Applicant’s claims. On p. 12 of Applicant’s response, Applicant summarizes such alleged improvements as (a) implementing a secure communication channel between IoTs by implementing them as nodes of a distributed ledger, (b) detecting a route and/or a position of the at least one load carrier device based at least on the sensor data, (c) causing at least one computer device to perform at least one predetermined operation in response to the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device, and (d) providing, in real-time, an accurate positioning/distribution picture of the load carrier units by means of the communication recording of the individual data collection points.
Regarding (a), Examiner disagrees that the additional elements beyond the judicial exception meaningfully contribute to the alleged improvement in such a way as to invoke the technological or computing improvement 101 consideration for eligibility. This is because the elements/limitations which carry out the secure communication features are all generic computing components that have not been improved to contribute to such an alleged improvement. To further explain, under 101 guidance, it is typical that merely performing an abstract idea (for example, calculating a mathematical function) on a generic computer processor, without more, does not render eligibility under the 101 technological or computing improvement consideration. This is the case even though a generic processor could be said to provide an improvement in that the processor can typically calculate a mathematical function much faster than manual calculating. This demonstrates that alleged improvements that are typical for generic computing components generally do not invoke the 101 technological or computing improvement consideration for eligibility.
The involvement of the Internet of things (IoT) does not affect this analysis. To demonstrate, Examiner is providing the reference of Wikipedia, “Internet of things”, www.wikipedia.org, version of article dated April 12, 2019, retrieved on February 2, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as Wikipedia). Note that this article version is dated more than a year before Applicant’s priority date. The first page of the article presents an introductory description of what the Internet of things is. Note the broadness of that description, and especially that the Internet of things does not necessarily represent computing technologies that are particularly new or non-generic. For example, sensors, as in Applicant’s claim 1, may be computing devices having sensors that have become generic computing peripherals, such as cameras and GPS sensors. Computing devices having cameras or GPS sensors that have the ability to send collected information and receive controlling instructions over the Internet may be considered to be IoT devices, yet such sensor computing devices operating over a network with remote computing devices, even in combination, still represent merely generic/general-purpose computing system components. The “History” section on the first and second pages of the article further supports that Internet of things, in and of itself, does not move Applicant’s computing components out of the realm of generic computing components.
The involvement of the distributed ledger also does not affect this Examiner analysis. To demonstrate, Examiner is providing the reference of Wikipedia, “Distributed ledger”, www.wikipedia.org, version of article dated April 2, 2019, retrieved on February 2, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as Wikipedia 2). Note that this article version is dated more than a year before Applicant’s priority date. Also note that the article states that one form of distributed ledger design is the blockchain system. Since blockchain represents a type of distributed ledger, Examiner is providing the reference of Wikipedia, “Blockchain” (Examiner has attached enlarged version of the article’s Bitcoin transaction graph at end of article), www.wikipedia.org, version of article dated March 28, 2019, retrieved on February 2, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as Wikipedia 3). Again, note that this article version is dated more than a year before Applicant’s priority date. Note the history and usage of blockchains discussed in this article, including the graph of usage of Bitcoin (Examiner has attached enlarged version of the article’s Bitcoin transaction graph at end of article). Also, see the prior art reference of Dierks, US 20180083786 A1, published more than one year before Applicant’s priority date. In its “BACKGROUND” section, Dierks, paragraph [0002], states: “Blockchains are commonly used to provide a secure audit or log chain.” Therefore, blockchains (which Examiner established above are a type of distributed ledger) were already commonly used for security purposes before Applicant’s priority date. Thus, such usage may be considered to fall under generic/general-purpose computing system components, and the involvement of the distributed ledger in Applicant’s representative claim 1 does not affect Examiner’s 101 analysis of the claim.
There is also a view that blockchains essentially amount to software for performing their respective blockchain functions. Under this view, such functions may be considered part of the abstract idea, while the software/computing aspects may be treated as generic/general-purpose computing system components.
Therefore, alleged improvement (a) above, argued by Applicant, would not invoke the 101 technological or computing improvement consideration because IoTs and the use of distributed ledgers for security both qualified as generic computing components before Applicant’s priority date. Since security was a common usage for distributed ledgers before Applicant’s priority date, using distributed ledgers for an alleged security improvement would not invoke the 101 improvement consideration, similar to how using a generic processor for faster calculations would not (see earlier discussion).
Regarding alleged improvement (b) above (detecting a route and/or a position of the at least one load carrier device based at least on the sensor data), this may amount to a generic computing system essentially receiving and analyzing GPS data taken from a load carrier device. As explained above, the sensor (such as GPS device) traveling with the load carrier device does not help with eligibility because it is insignificant extra-solution activity that is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. This leaves the remaining feature of the sensor sending the sensor data to a computing system where route and/or position of the load carrier device may be detected via analysis of the sensor data. All of the computing components there fall under generic/general-purpose computing system components, that is, “mere instructions to apply an exception.” For at least the reason that we do not have meaningful contribution from the additional elements beyond the judicial exception to alleged improvement (b) (for example, there is no new type of GPS), alleged improvement (b) does not invoke the 101 technological or computing improvement consideration.
Regarding alleged improvement (c) above (causing at least one computer device to perform at least one predetermined operation in response to the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device), this feature is actually a combination of part of the abstract idea with some of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The 101 rejection for claim 1 lists, as one of the abstract-idea limitations: “control by causing to perform at least one predetermined operation in response to the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device being in a route and/or position associated with the at least one predetermined operation”. The computing component(s) that perform this function are merely generic computing system components. “Load carrier device” here is simply used to describe the data content; however, collecting the sensor data from the load carrier device was already addressed by Examiner elsewhere in this Office action anyway. For at least the reason that this alleged improvement amounts to merely performing abstract idea on generic computing components, without more, this argument does not invoke the 101 technological or computing improvement consideration.
Regarding alleged improvement (d) above (providing, in real-time, an accurate positioning/distribution picture of the load carrier units by means of the communication recording of the individual data collection points), this amounts to a bigger-picture description of the claims, focusing on how they track the load carrier units. That being said, none of this affects Examiner’s analysis of how the additional elements beyond the abstract idea can all be dismissed as either generic computing components (mere instructions to apply the exception) or insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Because of this, none of the additional elements beyond the judicial exception meaningfully contribute to any 101 eligibility considerations for helping the abstract-idea claims to eligibility, as is needed here.
Applicant also argues that the claims are eligible because they amount to significantly more than any abstract idea. Applicant argues this based on the ordered combination of elements/limitations being other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. In response, the “significantly more” analysis must have meaningful contribution from the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Therefore, we will look to the ordered combination of the additional elements beyond the judicial exception (using representative independent claim 1) to determine if such ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional (or not).
As Examiner discussed earlier, the additional elements beyond the judicial exception for claim 1 are divided into two groups, those treated as mere instructions to apply an exception (the generic computing components), and “the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device” (treated as insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional). Examiner used Berkheimer evidence in the form of the Lau reference, to show that this last limitation, by itself, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
In the 101 rejection for claim 1, in that Berkheimer evidence section, it is highlighted that Lau, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], states in part: “In some conventional supply chain systems, sensors are placed with the tangible assets to establish whether shipment conditions are met during transit. The sensors may collect data regarding the shipment conditions. The conventional supply chain system may store the data locally, such as on a local storage device that is physically proximate to the sensors and tangible assets, such as with the same shipping container, and provide the stored data to a computing system of the customer at intervals, such as at data collection checkpoints during shipping (e.g., weighing stations or distribution centers).” While this disclosure is being used to address the particular limitation for which the Berkheimer evidence was required, this disclosure is also informative with respect to the current Applicant argument being addressed. Note that the immediately previous quotation mentions providing the collected data to the computing system of the customer. While the quotation does not give a detailed description of the structure and features of such customer computing system, it is reasonable to view that such computing system may have any of countless configurations of generic computing components. For example, there may be a keyboard, bar code scanner, display, mouse, printer, camera, microphone, speaker, Internet, other networked computers, and so on. Making such a computer either have or not have a printer (for example) would not suddenly make the ordered combination with the rest of the shipping tracking system to be other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. As Examiner discussed earlier, IoT devices and distributed ledgers may be regarded as generic computing components here as well. Therefore, considering all of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea as an ordered combination does not result in other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Finally, Applicant argues that the fact that there is no prior art cited for the pending claims strengthens the conclusion that the recited limitations are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. In response, please see MPEP 2106.05(I), which states: “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.” For example, a claim may overcome the prior art due, at least in part, to features in the abstract idea. However, the well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis under Step 2B of 101 analysis requires meaningful contribution specifically from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. That is an example of how a claim may have no prior art rejections, yet also have additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination(s) of elements/limitations in the claim(s), including the particular configuration(s) of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination(s), without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “load carrier device” in claims 1, 3-5, 10-13, and 16 (but not 9); “route and/or position evaluation device” in claims 1, 5, and 16; “triggering device” in claim 1; “positioning determining device” in claim 5; “data collection device” in claim 10; and “position evaluation device” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- detect transport routes and/or a position of at least one load carrier device and goods transported and/or stored thereon;
- wherein each of the plurality of IoTs is represented;
- at least identification data comprising at least information with respect to identification of the at least one load carrier device, a type of goods, and an amount of the goods transported by and/or stored on the at least one load carrier device;
- analysis data associated with the at least one load carrier device and the goods;
- exchange at least the identification data and the sensor data;
- output the analysis data;
- output the sensor data to at least one route and/or position evaluator;
- the route and/or position evaluation which (i) detects a route and/or a position of the at least one load carrier device based at least on the sensor data and (ii) outputs the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device to at least one triggering;
- uses the analysis data as input into an analysis algorithm for estimating and/or predicting stock quantities and/or predicting transport times and/or predicting required replenishment and/or for a simulation and/or for optimization;
- control by causing to perform at least one predetermined operation in response to the detected route and/or position of the at least one load carrier device being in a route and/or position associated with the at least one predetermined operation;
- wherein the at least one predetermined operation comprises causing to generate data based on the information exchanged and the route and/or position associated with the at least one predetermined operation, the generated data comprising at least one of the following data: goods receipt data or goods issue data; inventory data; order data; master data; identification data; credit risk management data; insurance data; invoicing data; banking data; financing data; factoring data; tokenization data; payment data; clearing data; tax data; customs data; accounting/general ledger data; official (trade) statistics data; and/or quality data;
- wherein the route and/or the position of the at least one load carrier device is detected using at least the identification data and the sensor data exchanged.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to shipping services, which are very often commercial.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- securely exchanging information between a plurality of Internet of Things (IoTs) configured; a plurality of Internet of Things (IoTs); a distributed ledger comprising a plurality of nodes; representing by one of the plurality of nodes; data storage device; data storage; one or more sensors; wherein the sensor is a position sensor; at least one data collection point configured to collect data; communication device; outputting by transmitting to at least one central computing device; at least one central computing device; computing devices; devices; outputting by transmitting to at least one device; at least one computer device; automatically; exchanging information via the distributed ledger; a plurality of automatic or manually triggered data collection points, each having a communication range; data exchanged with a respective automatic or manually triggered data collection point: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). MPEP 2106.05(g) states: “The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because the particular type of object being monitored here (the load carrier device) does not add a meaningful limitation to the overall monitoring process, and the other limitation(s) can otherwise be viewed as mere data gathering. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not add significantly more for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, as relevant to these particular element(s)/limitation(s):
Mere Data Gathering:
Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).
Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012). See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis).
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:
Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Insignificant application:
Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Printing or downloading generated menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept.
If an examiner previously concludes under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner should evaluate whether that additional element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, in step 2B. Examiner addresses below why that element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field:
- the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device: See Lau, US 20200202289 A1, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], which states in part: “In some conventional supply chain systems, sensors are placed with the tangible assets to establish whether shipment conditions are met during transit. The sensors may collect data regarding the shipment conditions. The conventional supply chain system may store the data locally, such as on a local storage device that is physically proximate to the sensors and tangible assets, such as with the same shipping container, and provide the stored data to a computing system of the customer at intervals, such as at data collection checkpoints during shipping (e.g., weighing stations or distribution centers).” Thus, “the at least one load carrier device for physically transporting and/or storing the goods, wherein the at least one load carrier device comprises (i) at least one data storage device configured to store data, and (ii) one or more sensors configured to collect and exchange sensor data associated with the goods and the at least one load carrier device” was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3-5, 7-13, and 15-17, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- triangulation method (claim 3);
- signals (claim 4);
- Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN) (claim 4);
- a positioning determining device (claim 5);
- at least one display and/or printing device (claims 8 and 17);
- data collection device (claim 10);
- computer-implemented (claims 11-13 and 15);
- a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, which upon execution by a processor, causes the processor to perform the computer-implemented method (claim 15);
- Global Positioning System (GPS) (claim 16).
Regarding claim 9, at least one of the options for the load carrier device (the railway car) is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Wurzer, U.S. Patent No. 5395190, column 1, lines 30-42. Therefore claim 9 does not change the independent claim analysis with respect to the load carrier device.
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 7 merely specifies possible content of data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-13, and 15-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Phillips, US 20180232548 A1 (processes for distribution and use of a mobile RFID container);
b. Pleshek, US 20180004988 A1 (mobile RFID container and distribution method);
c. Jurich, US 20230316216 A1 (determining item mortality based on tracked environmental conditions during transit).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights