Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been considered are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to correct the typographical errors in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but isn’t persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12, the claims do not merely recite a fundamental economic or administrative concept but require technical hardware and software.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as optimizing peel piles to organize delivery timing of containers. (See specification, par. 0008) The generic computer implementations/additional elements do not change the character of the limitations.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that the features enable optimization of otherwise limited resources at places like ports of entry for goods coming into a country, saving time, resources and money, while enhancing the ability for providers of goods to products reach their customers in a timely manner. Applicant argues, that these are practical applications with measurable real-world effects. As such, the claims as presently amended are integrated into a practical application and therefore allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (computer elements, electronic data, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13, even if the claims were found to involve an abstract idea, they recite significantly more than just the abstract idea. Applicant argues, that claim elements go beyond generic computer implementation and provide novel, technically rooted features not previously conventional in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on page 14, that the claims are similar to eligible claim 1 of example 42. Applicant argues that the system and take in information from users over a network, process the content in responses from the users, validates container and location information via electronic hardware processing, networking and storage systems and generates optimized peel piles based on the validated content, and sends information to users related to the pickup of containers in a specific order to maintain the optimized peel piles and method identifies and provides messages to users over a communication.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of example 42 was considered eligible because the claims recites a combinations of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Here, as mentioned above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore the claims recite an abstract idea.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the office action mailed on 03/27/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine
Claim 12-22 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
receive…, …, … data comprising a container identification profile associated with a container, wherein said container identification profile comprises a container type identifier;
identify, …, a one or more potential locations for placement of said container, based at least in part on said container type identifier;
select, …, a container location for placement of said container from the one or more potential locations, wherein the selection of the container location creates an optimized peel pile;
send, …, the container location for placement of said container to a transporter;
insert, …, a pickup invitation into a container pickup storage list stored …, wherein said pickup invitation is … entered into said container pickup storage list at a position in the container pickup storage list that ensures pickup of the container maintains optimization of the optimized peel pile; and
send, …, one or more pickup invitations from said container pickup storage list, in an order based at least in part on locations of said one or more pickup invitations in said container pickup storage list such that optimization of the optimized peel pile is maintained.
The limitation of Claim 12 recites:
receiving …, …, … data comprising a container identification profile associated with a container, wherein said container identification profile comprises a container type identifier;
identifying, …, one or more potential locations for placement of said container, based at least in part on said container type identifier;
selecting, …, a container location for placement of said container from the one or more potential locations, wherein the selection of the container location creates an optimized peel pile;
sending, …, the location for placement of said container to a transporter;
inserting, …, a pickup invitation into a container pickup storage list stored …, wherein said pickup invitation being inserted into said container pickup storage list at a position in the container pickup storage list that ensures pickup of the container maintains optimization of the optimized peel pile; and
sending, …, one or more pickup invitations from said container pickup storage list, based at least in part on locations of said one or more pickup invitations in said container pickup storage list such that optimization of the peel pile is maintained.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as optimizing peel piles to organize delivery timing of containers. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A computerized system, comprising:
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
network
electronic data
one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices
electronically entered
Claim 12:
Computerized method
network
via one or more processors
electronic data
one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-11 and 13-22 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
No additional elements
There are no further additional elements recited in dependent claims (apart from those already recited and analyzed above in the independent claims) that change the character of the limitations. Therefore, the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628