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 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 12/19/2025. Claims 1 and 13 were amended; no claim was cancelled, or added in a reply filed 04/20/2026. Therefore claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 in regards to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments do not overcome the rejection under 101 because the claims remain directed to an abstract idea: collecting information regarding refrigerated units, routes, and distribution centers; calculating efficiency properties and metrics, determining practicality of relocation; selecting assignments, and outputting/transmitting instructions for fleet allocation.
The amended claim is framed in the environment of refrigerated transportation, but the claimed improvement remains an information processing and logistical assignment process implemented using generic processors, sensors, database, and a fleet controller.
Applicant argues that “At a holistic level, the claims are about transportation of perishable goods so they reach the destination in an acceptable condition, but also in a cost-efficient manner. The pending claims reduce waste of perishable goods, which has significant environment and economic benefits.” (remarks p. 15-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because it characterizes the claims by their intended field of use and desired result, rather than by what the claims actually recite as the alleged improvement.
Claim 1 does not recite a specific technological improvement to refrigerated transportation. The claim does not require a new refrigeration mechanism, a new refrigerated unit structure, a new sensor arrangement, a new thermal control technique, a new fleet controller architecture, or a specific technical algorithm for preserving goods.
Instead, the claim recites: obtaining information regarding refrigerated units; calculating an efficiency property; obtaining information regarding routes and distribution centers; calculating an efficiency metric; determining practicality of relocation based on geographic locations; selecting assignments; and outputting selected assignments and instructions.
Those steps are directed to information collection, calculation/evaluation, decision making, and outputting the result. The fact that the intended result may be cost efficient refrigerated transportation or reduced waste does not make the claim patent eligible where the claim does not recite a concrete technical means for achieving that result.
The claimed benefit, reducing waste and improving cost efficiency, is stated at a high level of generality. It is an intended outcome of the abstract assignment process, not a technological improvement recited in the claim.
Applicant argues “First, referring to step 2A of the Alice test, Applicant submits that amended claims 1 and 13 are not a judicial exception, referencing MPEP 2106, including the flow chart and commentary therein; and MPEP 2106.4 including the flow chart and commentary therein… The method and system relate to "...transport[ing] perishable goods in a fleet of refrigerated units..." to retain them in an acceptable state. Transporting goods in refrigerated units is a clear real-world, physical activity with physical items - there is nothing abstract about it.” (remarks p. 16-17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere fact that the claim is used in connection with physical refrigerated units and physical transportation does not remove the abstract idea from the claim.
The eligibility analysis does not turn on whether the field of use involves physical items. Rather, the analysis looks to the focus of the claim. Here, the focus of the claim is not the physical transportation itself, but the information processing logic used to assign refrigerated units to routes and distribution centers.
The claim does not recite a specific step of physically loading goods, driving a vehicle, activating a refrigeration cycle, controlling a compressor, changing a temperature setpoint, or monitoring spoilage in a specific technical manner. The claim instead recites calculating efficiency properties and metrics and selecting assignments.
Thus, while the claim is applied to refrigerated logistics, the claimed advance remains an abstract process of evaluating information and making assignment decisions. A claim does not become non-abstract merely because it uses data about physical objects. Here, the refrigerated units, routes, distribution centers, geographic locations, and thermal insulation information are merely data inputs to the claimed calculation and assignment process.
Applicant argues “Furthermore, the method and system relate to "...operating a fleet of refrigerated units across a plurality of distribution centers and associated routes to improve overall efficiency with which the fleet of refrigerated units services all of the routes." Operating a fleet of units across distribution centers to improve efficiency is not abstract either.” (remarks p. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because the claim does not recite a specific technological way of operating the refrigerated units. It recites controlling allocation of units to routes and/or relocating units to other distribution centers according to selected assignments which is a logistical allocation decision. The claim does not improve how the refrigerated units mechanically or thermally operate. It does not improve the refrigeration system, the fleet controller, the communication network, the sensors, or the database. Instead, it uses generic computing components to decide how assets should be assigned.
The claim language “operating the refrigerated units by controlling the allocation” is broad, functional, and result oriented. It does not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific physical control process. It merely applies the calculated assignment to the business/logistical environment of refrigerated unit fleet management. Therefore, the claim remains abstract because the asserted operation is no more than applying the result of the assignment calculation.
Applicant argues “The organizing human activity grouping targets claims whose core involves human decisions, behaviors, relationships, or commercial interactions - such as hedging, insurance, risk mitigation, contractual obligations, or sales activities. The core of the amended claims does not involve human decision, behaviors, relationships or commercial interactions. No human decides, based on business judgment, to change the route. Rather, the method/system is for transportation of perishable goods in a fleet of refrigerated units.” (remarks p. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, even assuming the claim is not properly characterized primarily as organizing human activity, the claim still recites other abstract idea groupings, including mental processes and mathematical concepts/calculations. The rejection need not depend exclusively on organizing human activity.
Second, to the extend the claim is directed to allocating fleet resources among routes and distribution centers to improve cost efficiency, the claim still concerns management of logistical operations. The fact that a processor performs the decision making instead of a human dispatcher does not remove the abstract character of the claimed allocation process.
The claim recites selecting route/distribution center assignments based on calculated efficiency metrics and practicality of relocation. That is the type of planning, evaluation, and resource allocation decision that could historically be performed by dispatchers, logistics managers, or fleet planners, even if the claimed implementation uses more data or automates the process. The claim’s use of a processor, sensors, and databases does not transform the nature of the decision into a technological improvement. It merely automates the decision making process.
Applicant argues “The method/system receives sensor and/or database data from physical refrigeration hardware and routes, calculates efficiency properties for the refrigerated units and routes based on the data, and selects and transmits route assignments to a fleet controller for controlling refrigerated units to routes and distribution centers. This is all without any human judgment, human organization or other human step intervening in that process. The process itself is entirely system driven. This is not the type of activity MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) contemplates.” (remarks p. 17-18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because automation of an abstract idea does not make the claim patent eligible.
The fact that the process is “system driven” merely shows that the abstract evaluation and assignment process is performed by generic computing components. The claim still recites obtaining data, calculating values, selecting assignments, and transmitting instructions. Those are information processing functions. The claim does not recite a specific improvement in how the computer performs calculations, how the sensors collect data, how the fleet controller generates control signals, or how refrigerated units preserve perishables. It simply uses conventional computing components to automate a logistical assignment process. A claim that automates a business/logistical decision using generic processors, sensors, databases, and controllers does not become patent eligible merely because no human intervenes.
Applicant argues “Applicant submits that nothing in claims 1 and 13 is performed in the human mind - it is processors, sensors, databases, a fleet controller and refrigerated units that perform the method/system…Applicant submits that there are no limitations in claims 1 and 13 that can be practically performed in the mind. Sensors and databases will have vast amounts of data, and the calculations will be complex and voluminous such that they can only be performed on a processor. Selecting assignments based on constraints requires juggling multiple parameters and data which cannot be done by a human.” (remarks p. 18-19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because a claim can recite a mental process even when the claim requires a generic computer to perform the process. The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed concepts are, at their core, observations, evaluations, judgments, or decisions. Here, the claim recites: evaluating refrigerated unit information; evaluating route information; evaluating distribution center geographic locations; determining relocation practicality; selecting assignments based on the evaluations; and outputting the selected assignments.
These are evaluative and decision-making steps. They are not rendered non-abstract merely because they are carried out by processors using sensor and database information. The claim does not recite any particular technological improvement to the processors, sensors, database, fleet controller, or refrigerated units. The processors are used as tools to perform the abstract evaluation and assignment process.
Furthermore, the claim does not actually require “vast amounts of data” a particular scale of data, a specific computational complexity, or any defined optimization algorithm that could only be performed by a computer. The claim broadly recites “information” from refrigerated units, sensors, database, routes, and distribution centers. It also broadly recites calculating an “efficiency property” calculating an “efficiency metric” and determining “practicality.” Those terms are not limited to a specific volume of information or specific computational technique.
Even if a computer performs the claimed analysis faster or on more data than a human could conveniently process, that does not itself establish eligibility. The claim must recite a specific technological improvement or a specific practical application beyond using a computer as a tool to perform information analysis and decision making. Here, the claim merely uses generic processors to perform the claimed calculations and selection. The alleged complexity is not reflected in the claim language in a way that imposes a meaningful technological limitation.
Applicant argues “First, the amended method/system claims 1 and 13 are for transportation of goods in a fleet of refrigerated units. The method/system " transports one or more refrigeration units on routes " relocates one or more refrigeration units to other distribution centres. Applicant respectfully submits that this is clearly a practical application - the method/system is applied to real-world physical features (see bolded items), and those physical features interact to implement the transportation of goods and improve that implementation (so products are transported on routes with best efficiency to retain goods in an acceptable state). Second, the way the improvement is determined is a practical application. Paraphrasing, claims 1 and 13 " obtain information about refrigerated units and routes from the refrigerated unit, or more sensors and/or databases, " calculate efficiency parameters for the refrigerated units or routes using one or more processors, The improvement comes from: " using the real-world information from physical features, " then calculating information that can be used to improve the transportation of goods by using the physical features.” (remarks p. 20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because obtaining real world information and using it in calculations is part of the abstract idea itself.
The claim obtains information from refrigerated units, sensors, databases, routes, and distribution centers. That is data gathering. The claim then calculates efficiency properties and metrics, that is data analysis. The claim then selects assignments and outputs instructions. That is decision making and outputting results. These steps do not become a practical application merely because the input data comes from physical items. The claim does not improve the physical sensors, improve the way data is measured, improve the way refrigerated units are controlled, or improve computer functionality. Using real world information as input to an abstract calculation is insufficient where the claim does not recite a specific technological implementation that applies the calculation in a meaningful technical way.
Applicant argues “Third, there is a practical application in how the transportation of goods is changed (e.g. change of refrigerated units to another route or distributions centre) by using the physical features to operate the refrigerated units to effect the improvement. Paraphrasing, the amended claims: " select one or more route assignments using the processors, " transmit the selections to a fleet controller, " and operating the refrigerated units by: " controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to routes, and/or " relocating one or more refrigerated units to other distribution centers” (remarks p. 21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because the recited “change” is stated at a functional level and merely applies the abstract assignment decision. The claim does not recite a specific technical mechanism by which the fleet controller controls allocation. It does not recite a specific control architecture, dispatch protocol, communication sequence, routing control algorithm, refrigeration control parameter, or actuator operation”.
The claimed “transmitting” and “outputting” steps merely communicate the result of the calculation. The claimed “controlling the allocation” and “relocating” steps merely state that the assignment result is used. These limitations are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful technical limitation on how the abstract idea is applied. At most, the claim is directed to calculating assignments and using them to allocate/relocate refrigerated units. That is the abstract idea itself applied to the field of refrigerated logistics.
Applicant argues “So, the claims are not just to calculation. Rather, the practical application is transportation of goods using physical features (see First above), using information from physical features to calculate how to improve transportation of those goods (see Second above), then using that information to control the physical features to change operations to effect improved transportation of goods via changing routing/distribution centres (see Third above).” (remarks p. 21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because the claim remains “just calculation” plus generic data gathering and generic output/application of the result.
The claim does not recite a particular technological improvement to the refrigerated units, the sensors, the databases, the processors, or the fleet controller. It does not recite a particular machine configuration that changes how refrigerated goods are preserved. It does not recite a specific technical rule for controlling refrigeration or vehicle operation. The physical features are used as source of data or as the environment in which the calculated assignment is applied. That does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues “Based on the Final Office Action's assessment of the judicial exception, the amended claims have at least the following additional elements [paraphrasing]: " for transporting perishable goods in a fleet of refrigerated units " operating the fleet of refrigerated units across a plurality of distribution centres and associated routes to improve overall efficiency with which the fleet of refrigerated units services all of the routes " relating to refrigerated units " one or more sensors and/or one or more databases; " one or more processors " relating to routes " one or more sensors and/or one or more databases; " one or more processors " transmitting selected route assignments to a fleet controller for allocating routes and distribution centres " operating the refrigerated units by: " controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to routes, and/or " relocating one or more refrigerated units to other distribution centers.. As an overarching comment, the combination of the all the physical features is not a general computer, but rather a part of a logistics transportation system.” (remarks p. 23).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The refrigerated units, routes, distribution centers, sensors, databases, processors, and fleet controller are recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not recite that these components are unconventional, nor does it recite any unconventional arrangement that improves their technical operation.
The processors perform ordinary processing. The sensors and databases provide information. The fleet controller receives assignment instructions. These are generic roles for generic components. The additional elements therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. They merely provide the technological and logistical environment in which the abstract assignment process is performed.
Furthermore, the issue is not whether the claim recites only a general-purpose computer in isolation. The issue is whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the claimed logistics transportation system is recited generically. The claim does not improve the functioning of the logistics system through a specific technical solution. It merely uses processors, sensors, databases, and a fleet controller to make and transmit assignment decisions. A generic logistics environment does not supply an inventive concept where the claimed advance is the abstract idea of optimizing assignments based on calculated efficiency metrics.
Applicant argues “The inventive concept is to operate the physical features in a non-conventional way so the perishable goods get to their destination within cost efficiency constraints while staying in an acceptable state. This results in reduced perishing of goods, reduced waste and better environmental and economic outcomes. To achieve this, it is not just a simple matter of applying instructions to a general computer. Rather, in the context of a transportation system, the amended claims 1 and 13 " uses route and refrigerated units information to calculate efficiencies " selects routes that balance the competing constraints of cost and maintaining goods in an acceptable state, and " and operates the refrigerated units by control of routes and relocation of refrigerated units to achieve that balanced outcome... The inventive concept is to get perishable goods to their destination in an improved way. The additional elements take real information from physical sensors or databases and carry out calculations to route a fleet of refrigerated units in a more efficient way to to improve the overall cost efficiency with which goods are transported in the fleet of refrigerated units, while arriving in an acceptable state ” (remarks p. 24).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite how the physical features are operated in a non-conventional way. It does not define a specific control sequence, routing algorithm, refrigeration control technique, or mechanism for verifying that goods remain in an acceptable state.
The phrase “within cost efficiency constraints while staying in an acceptable state” states a goal. The claim does not recite a technical solution that ensures this goal is achieved. Moreover, any alleged reduction in waste or environmental benefit flows from the abstract allocation decision. It does not supply an inventive concept separate from the abstract idea.
Also, Applicant cannot rely on the abstract idea as the inventive concept. The asserted inventive concept must be found in additional claim elements beyond the abstract idea. Here, the alleged inventive concept is simply the claimed information analysis and assignment selection process. The claim does not recite a specific mathematical model, optimization algorithm, control loop structure, or technical implementation. It broadly covers any calculation of an efficiency metric based on refrigerated unit efficiency properties, route information, distribution center information, geographic locations, and relocation practicality.
Moreover, obtaining information from sensors, or databases is conventional data gathering. Carrying out calculations using processors is conventional data processing. Routing a fleet based on calculated results is the abstract logistical decision. The claim therefore uses generic components for their ordinary purposes. That does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that this is non-conventional, as the result using efficiency calculations from sensors and databases to control fleets has not been done before. Relocating units to different distribution centers is also non-conventional (to improve fleet efficiency), and even counter-intuitive - common thinking would be to send unit to their destination directly, not to another distribution center. Thus, the claims clearly cover non-conventional activity. It can be considered an improvement to the functioning of the logistics system for distributing perishable goods, providing better outcomes in both quality of goods and cost efficiency.” (remarks p. 25).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s assertion of non-conventionality is conclusory and is not proportionate with the breadth of the claim. The claim does not recite a specific non-conventional way of using sensors, database, or fleet controllers. Nor does the claim recite a specific non-conventional relocation mechanism. It broadly recites determining practicality of relocation based on geographic locations and calculating an efficiency metric based on that practicality.
The idea of relocating fleet assets among distribution centers based on geography and efficiency is a logistical planning decision. Even if the particular business decision were new, novelty alone does not establish eligibility under 101. The inventive concept must be more than the abstract idea itself implemented on generic computer components.
Applicant’s alleged non-conventional feature, using efficiency calculations to control fleet allocation, is the abstract idea. The claim does not add a separate technical improvement that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The claim does not improve the functioning of the processors, sensors, database, fleet controller, or refrigerated units. It improves, at most, the quality of logistical decision making by selecting assignments intended to improve cost efficiency while maintaining goods in an acceptable state. That is an improvement to an abstract business/logistical process, not a technological improvement. The claim therefore does not recite an inventive concept.
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 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are directed towards a method (i.e. a process) and a computer system (i.e. machine), respectively. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units from: the refrigerated unit; calculating an efficiency property for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the efficiency property based on the information regarding each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property compared with each other; obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of routes; calculating an efficiency metric for each of one or more potential assignments of each of the plurality of refrigerated units to one or more of the plurality of routes based on the efficiency property of each of the plurality of refrigerated units and the information regarding each of the plurality of routes; for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, selecting one of the one or more potential assignments to one or more of the plurality of routes of the refrigerated unit; outputting and transmitting to a fleet controller, the selected assignments and instructions for controlling the allocation of the plurality of refrigerated units to arrange for the refrigerated units to be allocated to routes and distribution centres according to the assignment, operating the refrigerated units by: controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to routes, and/or relocating one or more refrigerated units to other distribution centers, according to the selected assignments by using the instructions, to meet constraints of improving the overall cost efficiency with which perishable goods are transported in the fleet of refrigerated units while retaining the perishable goods in an acceptable state, wherein the plurality of routes comprises a plurality of groups of routes, each of one or more of the groups of routes being associated with a respective distribution center, wherein each of the one or more potential assignments comprises an assignment of one or more of the refrigerated units to each of the groups of routes, wherein the method comprises obtaining information regarding each of the distribution centers, and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the information regarding each of the distribution centers, and wherein obtaining information regarding the one or more distribution centers comprises obtaining a geographical location of each distribution center and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the geographic locations, the method further comprising determining a practicality of relocating a refrigerated unit from one distribution center to another based on the geographic locations, wherein the relocated refrigerated unit is unassigned from the groups of routes associated with one distribution center and assigned to the groups of routes associated with the other distribution center, and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the practicality, and wherein obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units comprises obtaining information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and wherein calculating an efficiency property comprises calculating the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property based on their different thermal insulation.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of routing vehicles which is a method of organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and processes that can be done in the human mind (with the help of pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “one or more sensors and/or one or more databases, using one or more processors,”. Accordingly, no additional element is present to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, no additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 21-23 and 26 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “obtain information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units; calculate an efficiency property for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the efficiency property based on the information regarding each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficient property compared with each other; obtain information regarding each of a plurality of routes; calculate an efficiency metric for each of one or more potential assignments of one or more of the refrigerated units to the plurality of routes based on the efficiency property of each of the plurality of refrigerated units and the information regarding each of the plurality of routes; select one of the one or more potential assignments; and output the selected assignment and output instructions for controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to arrange for the refrigerated units to be allocated to routes according to the assignment, wherein the plurality of routes comprises a plurality of groups of routes, each of one or more of the groups of routes being associated with a respective distribution center and wherein the one or more potential assignments comprises an assignment of one or more of the refrigerated units to each of the groups of routes; obtain information regarding each of the distribution centers; and calculate the efficiency metric based on the information regarding each of the distribution centers, and obtain information regarding the geographic location of each of the distribution centers; calculate the efficiency metric based on the geographic locations; calculate a cost of relocating a refrigerated unit from one distribution center to another based on the geographic locations, wherein the relocated refrigerated unit is unassigned from the groups of routes associated with one distribution center and assigned to the groups of routes associated with the other distribution center; and calculate the efficiency metric based on the cost of relocating the refrigerated unit, and obtain information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and calculate the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property based on their different thermal insulation.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of routing vehicle which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “one or more processors”, memory, and output device. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 15-17 and 24-26 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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 at (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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights