DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 09/04/2025. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-19 and 21-26 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16-18 have been amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and program for monitoring and tracking tractor trailer assets.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…read a unique identifier that is associated with each asset in the tractor trailer, the unique identifier including asset information,
… receiving at least one of indicia of the asset information from a reading of the terminal, receiving a manual input of the asset information, and choosing the asset information manually from a list of reference data displayed on the display device;
…performing a data comparison of the asset information with reference data stored on the storage to thereby identify the asset in an inventory associated with the reference data; and
…modifying the inventory based on the data comparison when the asset has reached a destination.”
The claim recites the steps of 1) collecting asset information, 2) processing the information (comparing data), and 3) updating stored information.
The above limitations describe an asset/inventory management process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (sales activities or behavior)" enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practices or principles, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices (terminal, server and storage) which represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The recited one or more computing devices (terminal, server and storage) represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered in combination, the additional elements do not transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 12 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to “software per se or program per se” that does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 17 is directed to a control module for unloading a tractor trailer that is loaded with assets.
Applicant’s filed specification teaches that, “[i]n one general aspect, control module may include prompt a user to read a unique identifier that is associated with each asset in the tractor trailer, the unique identifier including asset information. Control module may also receive at least one of indicia of the asset information, a manual input of the asset information, and user selection of asset information manually selected from a list of reference data displayed on the display device. Module may furthermore perform a data comparison of the asset information with reference data stored on the storage to thereby identify the asset in an inventory associated with the reference data. Module may in addition modify the inventory based on the data comparison when the asset has reached a destination. Other embodiments of this aspect include corresponding computer systems, apparatus, and computer programs recorded on one or more computer storage devices, each configured to perform the actions of the methods.” See paragraph 0009.
Applicant’s specification fails to define whether the claimed “control module” is hardware or software. “Software per se” or “program per se” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 18-20 are rejected based on their dependence, directly or indirectly on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0218247 (Lee et al. – hereinafter Lee).
Referring to claim 1, Lee discloses a system for unloading a tractor trailer that is loaded with assets, the system comprising:
a terminal having a display device and configured to read a unique identifier that is associated with each asset in the tractor trailer, the unique identifier including asset information, and [See paragraphs 0013, 0014, 0041, 0082]
a server in communication with the terminal and a storage, the server configured to perform an unloading process that includes: [See paragraph 0041, Fig. 1]
receiving at least one of indicia of the asset information from a reading of the terminal, receiving a manual input of the asset information, and choosing the asset information manually from a list of reference data displayed on the display device; [See paragraphs 0041, 0044, 0050-0053, 0060]
performing a data comparison of the asset information with reference data stored on the storage to thereby identify the asset in an inventory associated with the reference data; and [See paragraphs 0080-0085]
modifying the inventory based on the data comparison when the asset has reached a destination. [See paragraphs 0081-0085]
Referring to claim 2, Lee discloses the system according io claim 1, wherein the system is configured to await a manual confirmation entry to start an unloading process. [See Lee paragraph 0054]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further configured to determine a fill level of the tractor trailer based on the data comparison. [See Lee paragraphs 0062, 0066, 0082, 0084]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to clan 1, wherein the server is further configured to display a list of barcodes associated with a given stop. [See Lee paragraphs 0040, 0080, 0082, 0084 –Containers/products to be delivered to a location is displayed to the driver.]
Referring to claims 12, 13, 15 and 16, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 2, 7 and 11, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Referring to claims 17, 18 and 20, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 2, 7 and 11, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6, 9, 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0349496 (Irwin et al. – hereinafter Irwin).
Referring to claim 3, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1 above. Lee does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the system is configured to intelligently perform a data comparison of at least one of an ETA, a fuel consumption, and an estimated pay with historical data that is referenced by the server and that corresponds to the ETA, the fuel consumption, and the estimated pay.
Irwin teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the system is configured to intelligently perform a data comparison of at least one of an ETA, a fuel consumption, and an estimated pay with historical data that is referenced by the server and that corresponds to the ETA, the fuel consumption, and the estimated pay. [See paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0007, 0037, 0102, 0103 – Various types of data are collected and monitored.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Lee to have incorporated an electronic logging device and one or more sensors as in Irwin with the motivation of monitoring and logging information associated with transportation and delivery assets. [See Lee paragraphs 0012, 0013; Irwin paragraphs 0062-0064]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal includes at least one of a barcode scanner, a QR code scanner, an OCR scanner, or an RFID chip reader. [See Irwin paragraphs 0013, 0014, 0041, 0082]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of a trailer tracking device for tracking a truck assets associated with a truck that is moving the tractor trailer, an electronic logging device, and a toll device. [See Irwin paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0012, 0013, 0080, 0106 – One or more events associated with the trailer/truck may be tracked and logged.]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal is provided by a mobile device. [See Irwin paragraph 0061, Fig. 1]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a task list associated with at least one stop along a trip of the tractor trailer, the task list providing at least one of data indicative of the results of the data comparison, a time estimate to a subsequent stop, and a disposition of each asset delivered at the stop. [See Lee paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0056-0058, 0065; Irwin paragraphs 0069, 0070]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Lee and Irwin discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein further comprising a fleet user interface, a mechanic interface, and a customer interface. [See Irwin paragraphs 0002, 0062, 0064]
Referring to claim 14, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 9, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 19, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 9, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0278063 (Hersh et al. – hereinafter Hersh).
Referring to claim 8, Lee discloses the system according to claim 1 above. Lee does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the system is configured to check whether the tractor trailer is qualified for the assets.
Hersh teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the system is configured to check whether the tractor trailer is qualified for the assets. [See paragraph 0050]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Lee to have incorporated a tractor-trailer matching feature as in Hersh with the motivation of matching a tractor-trailer to a load shipment for delivery purposes. [See Lee paragraphs 0012, 0013; Hersh paragraph 0028]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that these arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the current rejection.
102/103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights