DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/12/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 were previously pending and subject to a final Office Action mailed 03/12/2025. Claims 1, 13, 16, and 28 were amended. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are currently pending and are subject to the non-final Office Action below.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the provisional application 63/106278 filed on 10/27/2020 and the PCT application PCT/NZ2021/050190 filed on 10/27/2021.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-19 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitations provide an improvement over prior systems and further recites limitations that minimize or eliminate loss. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Calculating a performance score and rearranging the route based on the performance score are processes directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity as the delivery route is modified to ensure that the user’s products are not subject to unsafe or unsuitable temperatures.
Further, minimizing/eliminating loss is not an improvement over prior systems. It is an improvement in the abstract idea itself as the service provided to the user is improved by reducing loss of the user’s products. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitations of “rearranging the route to minimize the performance score”, “selecting the rearranged route with the minimum performance score as a changed route” and “displaying the changed route and the minimized performance score on a display”.
See the following excerpts from the specification page 16-17 “The system 150 may raise an alert if the current or calculated future temperature exceeds a condition for any of the products 125, 135 in compartments 120, 130. Raising an alert may include alerting the driver of a vehicle transporting the compartment or raising an alert with the shippers, distributors, and/or receivers of the products 125, 135. Further even if an alert is not raised the system may display information on temperature tracking on the display 150 or a display of the shippers, distributors, and/or receivers of the products 125, 135. Further the system 150 stores this information for scoring and historical purposes.
In one embodiment the system may rearrange the route to ensure the products 125, 135 do not cause an alert or to minimise product loss based on the current or future temperatures exceeding the desired temperature range at the drop off location for the products 125, 135.
The system may further calculate a performance score for delivery of the products 125, 135, the performance score being based on product temperature range and the plurality of received product temperatures. A performance score based may be created for the driver, the distributor, and the distribution centre.”
Page 18 “FIG. 7 illustrates if a daily delivery run for a single compartment, or route, is deemed compliant. Compliance is achieved if the virtual temperature value is within a first of two temperature ranges until the end of the last delivery on the route otherwise not compliant. A score is determined for a distribution centre as the percentage of compliant routes as compared to the total number of routes for each distribution centre. For example, suppose a distribution centre A has two routes per day, for a 30-day month, giving 60 routes delivered in the month. If in this month there were 4 non-compliant routes, then the score would be 56/60˜=93%. The purpose of the first range, in this example, is to alert the driver and distribution centre and give them the opportunity to stop the route from becoming non-compliant. The system makes the compliance score available to users via a dashboard 700 seen in FIG. 7. The dashboard may include information on Weekly Compliance 720, a rolling weekly score 710 and compliance by driver, depot or store 740.”
Regarding “rearranging the route to minimize the performance score” and “selecting the rearranged route with the minimum performance score as a changed route”, the closest description of such features is “the system may rearrange the route to ensure the products 125, 135 do not cause an alert or to minimise product loss based on the current or future temperatures exceeding the desired temperature range at the drop off location for the products 125, 135”. Thus, the specification supports rearranging the route to minimize product loss based on the temperatures exceeding the range. The specification does not support rearranging the route to minimize the performance score and further does not support “selecting” at all.
Regarding “displaying the changed route and the minimized performance score on a display”, the closest description of “displaying” is “the system may display information on temperature tracking on the display 150” and “The system makes the compliance score available to users via a dashboard 700”. Thus, the specification supports displaying information on temperature tracking and displaying a compliance score. The specification does not support displaying the minimized performance score.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 inherit the rejection as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claims 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 and Claim 16 recites the limitations of:
obtaining a desired storage criterion for each of a plurality of products, the desired storage criteria including at least one condition, the at least one condition including a first product temperature range, and a second product temperature range;
based on the product temperature ranges setting for each product at least one alert temperature range;
calculating a current temperature of each of the plurality of products located in a compartment at a current time, the compartment including at least one door;
storing the current time and the current temperatures of each of the plurality of products in the compartment
receiving route information;
obtaining at least one drop off location for each of the plurality of products;
calculating a drop off time for each at least one drop off location;
calculating future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times including the drop off times of the products based on the current temperatures and expected changes between the current time and the plurality of future times, the expected changes including calculating a number of door opening events before the future time;
calculating a performance score for delivery of a product of the plurality of products, calculating the performance score comprising linearly increasing the performance score for every period of time the current temperature of the product is outside the first product temperature range and exponentially increasing the performance score if the current temperature of the product goes outside the second temperature range;
rearranging the route to minimize the performance score, wherein rearranging the route to minimize the performance score comprises:
for each of a plurality of possible rearranged routes calculating:
a drop off time for each at least one drop off location;
future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times including the drop off times of the products based on the current temperatures and expected changes between the current time and the plurality of future times, the expected changes including calculating a number of door opening events before the future time; and
a performance score for delivery of a product of the plurality of products, calculating the performance score comprising linearly increasing the performance score for every period of time the current temperature of the product is outside the first product temperature range and exponentially increasing the performance score if the current temperature of the product goes outside the second temperature range; and
selecting the rearranged route with the minimum performance score as a changed route; and
displaying the changed route and the minimized performance score…
The limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 16 stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” or “commercial or legal interactions”). Specifically, commercial interactions directed towards parties monitoring a product temperature during a shipping process and rearranging a delivery route based on the monitored temperature (influencing the performance score). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The background of the specification states “control and monitoring of products during transportation and delivery services is a concern for all parties. All parties of the supply and distribution chain are faced with the difficulty to assure products are safely and properly stored and transported at the right temperature. Typically, this relies on the transportation and delivery services to ensure that the products are stored and delivered in the appropriate temperature conditions. It would be desirable to provide a system and method to ensure that products are transported at the correct temperatures” which is further evidence of commercial activity between parties within a supply and distribution chain.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “calculating future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times including the drop off times of the products based on the current temperatures and expected changes between the current time and the plurality of future times, the expected changes including calculating a number of door opening events before the future time” and “calculating a performance score for delivery of a product of the plurality of products, calculating the performance score comprising linearly increasing the performance score for every period of time the current temperature of the product is outside the first product temperature range and exponentially increasing the performance score if the current temperature of the product goes outside the second temperature range” in light of the specification includes a mathematical calculation and/or mathematical relationship. Accordingly, “calculating” and “calculating” will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites an electronic computing device and a display and independent claim 16 recites the additional elements of: one or more processors; a memory associated with the one or more processors storing instructions to be executed by the processor; at least one networking device; and a display.
The additional elements of an electronic computing device, a display, one or more processors; a memory associated with the one or more processors storing instructions to be executed by the processor; and at least one networking device are recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception”.
Additionally, when considered as an additional element, the compartment which holds the plurality of products and which includes at least one door can be considered as field of use/technological environment as the application of the abstract idea is limited to monitoring temperature of products located within the compartment.
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an electronic computing device; a display; one or more processors; a memory associated with the one or more processors storing instructions to be executed by the processor; and at least one networking device to perform the steps/functions recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
When considered as an additional element, the compartment which holds the plurality of products and which includes at least one door can be considered as field of use/technological environment as the application of the abstract idea is limited to monitoring temperature of products located within the compartment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the steps/functions of Claim 1 and Claim 16 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The electronic computing device, display, one or more processors; a memory associated with the one or more processors storing instructions to be executed by the processor; and at least one networking device are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or field of use which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 and Claim 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 when considered both separately and in ordered combination with each dependent claim’s corresponding parent claims do not overcome the above analysis.
Claims 2 and 17 further specifies that the number of door opening events is based on the route information. Claims 3 and 18 further specifies another factor when calculating the future temperature. Claims 4 and 19 further specifies the factor calculation includes traffic conditions. Claims 11 and 26 further specifies calculating the current temperature based on sensor information from an environment the compartment is located in. Claims 13 and 28 specifies further raising an alert if the current or future temperature exceeds the alert temperature range for the product.
Claims 5 and 20 adds an additional element of at least one hardware temperature probe and/or at least one virtual temperature probe which are utilized to obtain information from which the current temperature is calculated. Such elements are considered field of use/technological environment as the sensor utilized to capture temperature data is limited to a hardware or virtual temperature probe. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 22 adds an additional element of a refrigerated unit. Claims 9 and 24 adds an additional element of a refrigeration unit including a refrigeration unit sensor. Claims 10 and 25 adds an additional element where the at least one refrigeration unit sensor is a return air sensor.
Such elements are considered field of use/technological environment. The sensor utilized to capture temperature data is limited to a refrigeration unit sensor and further limited to a return air sensor. The application of the abstract idea is limited to monitoring product temperatures of products located within a refrigerated unit which may be further limited to a refrigeration unit. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims further narrow the identified abstract idea but do not otherwise alter the analysis presented above. Nothing in dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
Examiner noting that the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art: available prior art, alone or in combination, fail to disclose every limitation of the independent claims. Examiner noting the limitation of “calculating the performance score comprising linearly increasing the performance score for every period of time the current temperature of the product is outside the first product temperature range and exponentially increasing the performance score if the current temperature of the product goes outside the second temperature range” as the specific limitation not disclosed by available prior art.
The following are the closest prior art:
Cates (US2020/0288218) teaches “obtaining”, “based”, “calculating a current temperature”, “storing”, and “calculating future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times based on the current temperatures and expected changes between the current time and the plurality of future times”.
Lavrich et al. (US2022/0080803) teaches “receiving route information” and “the expected changes including calculating a number of door opening events before the future time”.
Bermudez Rodriguez et al. (US 2017/0255901) teaches “obtaining at least one drop off location for each of the plurality of products”, “calculating a drop off time for each at least one drop off location”, “future times including the drop off times of the products”, and rearranging the route to minimise loss based on the plurality of products for which the current or future temperatures exceed the product temperature range.
Williams et al. (US2015/0046361) teaches displaying the changed route on a display (para. 25 recommending a route with mild temperatures if current route has an average temperature that is too hot for package contents; para. 47 and 52 temperature of package contents is sensed; para. 80 alert conditions for package contents and shipping routes may be flagged as undesirable; figure 11 and para 91 where current and alternative routes are generated and displayed)
Gooding (US2013/0018577) teaches determining a travelling cost for a street and using the travelling cost to plan a route through a region. Further, the cost is displayed on a map to permit a user to determine which streets to avoid.
Biermann et al. (US2019/0385115) teaches a temperature associated with an item falling outside of the per-item threshold temperature range, determining a warming rate, ranking potential routes, and identifying a highest ranking potential route.
Bose et al. (US2016/0196527) teaches monitoring the condition associated with a mobile item as it travels on a particular route.
Mandava et al. (US2022/0114528) teaches using a machine learning model to predict temperature of a perishable item.
Cherneff (US2019/0019142) teaches estimating a temperature history of a product and measuring an actual ending temperature of the product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628