DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 04/07/2026.
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 10/09/2025. Claims 1, 7, 11, 16, 22, and 26 were amended. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 16 by removing the limitations which failed to comply with the written description requirement.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 have been rendered moot and thus, have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-26 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/07/2026, 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.
Regarding Applicant’s comments on page 16, Examiner respectfully notes that “transportation of perishable goods in a manner to ensure they reach the customer in good condition” is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity. “Reduce waste of perishable goods which has significant environment and economic benefits” are improvements to the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 17-20, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the core of the amended claims is not a human decision as the process is entirely system-driven and the human receives the output of this automated technical process.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Thus, activity between the human and the system still fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
On a high level, the system collects data (sensor/temperature data), analyzes the data (calculates future temperature and performance score, and determines possible rearranged routes), and outputs a result (alerts or routes) which is utilized by a human to stop a route from becoming non-compliant. Such processes are directed to organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions regarding parties monitoring product temperatures during a shipping process and rearranging the delivery route.
Further, “No human decides, based on business judgment, to change the route” is inaccurate as Applicant’s amended claims provide a dashboard to the driver and distribution centre to communicate alerts and/or actions regarding the route. Thus, the people involved in the shipping process utilize the results provided by the system (“business judgment”) to decide to change the route.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the mathematical concept on page 19 are not persuasive. As Examiner noted in the Office Action, both “calculating” limitations include a mathematical calculation and/or relationship. Even if the mathematics are performed for the purposes of transporting goods, they are still considered abstract. For example, see (v) of MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(C) “using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client”. Such a process is performed for a real-world application; however, it is still considered as an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 19-20 that the claims provide a technical improvement and not merely an improvement in a business outcome and that the improvement is in how the physical system operates. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Allowing parties involved (shipper, distributor, distribution centre, driver) to change a shipping route by monitoring and analyzing data (sensor readings, traffic, door events, etc.) is the abstract idea.
Identifying a thermally suboptimal route and dynamically rearranging the route before a product temperature threshold is breached 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.”
Regarding Applicant’s Prong 2 argument on pages 20-23, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the first level, Applicant argues the physical features interact to implement the transportation of goods and improve the implementation. As stated in the rejection, the additional element of an electronic computing device is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, the vehicle (with the refrigerated compartment, GPS unit, system control and communication device and display), and the dashboard are field of use.
Regarding the second level, “using real world information from physical features” and “calculating information that can be used to improve the transportation of goods by using the physical features” are part of the abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s sensor argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensors do impose a limit on the source and nature of the physical data. Similar to “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment” in MPEP2106.05(h), the abstract idea “commercial interactions regarding parties monitoring product temperatures during a shipping process and rearranging the delivery route” specifically “monitoring product temperatures” is limited to data collected by the sensors.
See also in MPEP2106.05(h) “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.” Thus, Applicant’s sensor limitations which impose a limit on the source and nature (type of data) are considered as field of use and extra solution activity.
Regarding the third level of using physical features to affect the improvement, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the limitations Applicant provided “alerts”, “rearranges”, “communicate”, “integrate” are part of the abstract idea. The system and dashboard are the elements through which parties (driver and distribution centre) can monitor the product temperature and thus, are considered field of use.
The system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] and a dashboard accessed by parties remotely that are involved with the system/method limitations are limiting the abstract idea of “parties monitoring a product temperature during a shipping process and rearranging a delivery route” to computer environments as the dashboard is used to provide parties with an opportunity to stop a route from becoming non-compliant and both the dashboard and the system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] are used to communicate actions regarding the route and/or integrated with mobile workflow solutions for routing.
Regarding Applicant’s Step 2B argument on pages 23-26, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection, the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, field of use, and/or extra-solution activity.
Reduction of perished goods, waste, and improving environment and economic outcomes are improvements to the abstract idea itself.
“How the temperatures are determined by using information from the actual physical features in play” is merely field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity. As stated above, Applicant’s information is limited to a data such as temperature data provided by the sensors.
“Using that to change the operation of the physical features (e.g. truck and routing) to affect the improvement” is part of the abstract idea as the driver/distribution centre may utilize the results to stop the route from becoming non-compliant.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “calculate future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times including: the time between drop off locations on the route, which comprises considering the traffic condition information; 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 based on the route information before the future time”.
Examiner notes that Claim 1 recites “calculate 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 time between drop off locations on the route, which comprises considering the traffic condition information; 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 based on the route information before the future time”.
Examiner recommends Applicant amend the placement of the underlined limitation in Claim 16 similar to Claim 1 as the location of the underlined limitation in Claim 1 improves the clarity of the claim regarding how drop off times of the product are considered as a future time.
Additionally, Claim 16 also recites “at least one networking device” and “receive: route information via a network, and from the route information: a number of drop off locations, a number of door opening events, and expected time between door opening events; and traffic condition information via the network device”
Examiner recommends Applicant amend “via the network device” to recite “via the networking device”.
Dependent Claims 17-20, 22, 24-26, and 28 inherit the objections as they do not cure the deficiencies of Claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 and Claim 17 recite “wherein the number of door opening events is based on the route information” which fails to further limit the independent claims as Claim 1 and 16 recite “calculating future temperatures… the expected changes including calculating a number of door opening events based on the route information”.
Claim 3 and Claim 18 recite “wherein a factor in calculating the future temperatures includes considering the time between drop off locations on the route” which fails to further limit the independent claims as Claim 1 and 16 recite “calculating future temperatures … based on the time between drop off locations on the route, which comprises considering the traffic condition information”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Dependent Claim 4 and 19 inherit the rejection as they do not cure the deficiencies of Claims 2-3 and 17-18.
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 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; wherein the first product temperature range is used to alert the driver on the vehicle and a distribution centre and provide an opportunity to stop a route from becoming non-compliant …;
based on the product temperature ranges setting for each product at least one alert temperature range; and
for at least one of the one or more vehicles with the refrigerated compartment:
receiving information …;
calculating from the information a current temperature of each of the plurality of products located in the refrigerated compartment at a current time,
storing the current time and the current temperatures of each of the plurality of products in the refrigerated compartment;
receiving route information … and from the route information: a number of drop off locations; a number of door opening events; and expected time between door opening events; and traffic condition 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 time between drop off locations on the route, which comprises considering the traffic condition information; 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 based on the route information 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 of the vehicle to ensure the products do not cause an alert or to minimize product loss based on the current or future temperatures exceeding a desired temperature range at the drop off location for the products, wherein the rearranging the route 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
…communicating actions regarding the route; and/or integrating with mobile workflow solutions for routing
Independent Claim 16 recites the limitations of:
obtain 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; wherein the first product temperature range is used to alert the driver on the vehicle and a distribution centre and provide an opportunity to stop a route from becoming non-compliant …;
based on the product temperature ranges setting for each product at least one alert temperature range; and
for at least one of the one or more vehicles with the refrigerated compartment:
receive information …;
calculate from the information a current temperature of each of the plurality of products located in the refrigerated compartment at a current time,
store the current time and the current temperatures of each of the plurality of products in the refrigerated compartment;
receive route information … and from the route information: a number of drop off locations; a number of door opening events; and expected time between door opening events; and traffic condition information …
obtain at least one drop off location for each of the plurality of products;
calculate a drop off time for each at least one drop off location;
calculate future temperatures of each of the plurality of products at a plurality of future times including: the time between drop off locations on the route, which comprises considering the traffic condition information; 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 based on the route information before the future time;
calculate 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;
rearrange the route of the vehicle to ensure the products do not cause an alert or to minimize product loss based on the current or future temperatures exceeding a desired temperature range at the drop off location for the products, wherein the rearranging the route 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 based on the route information 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
…communicating actions regarding the route; and/or integrating with mobile workflow solutions for routing
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. 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” and “calculating a performance score” 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; at least one network device; one or more vehicles with: a refrigerated compartment with products; the refrigerated compartment including at least one door; a GPS unit; a system control and communication device and display and a dashboard accessed by parties remotely that are involved in the method; an inlet air sensor and a return air sensor of a refrigeration unit; and a network.
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; one or more vehicles with: a refrigerated compartment with products; the refrigerated compartment including at least one door; a GPS unit; a system control and communication device and display and a dashboard accessed by parties remotely that are involved with the system; an inlet air sensor and a return air sensor of a refrigeration unit; and a network.
The additional elements of an electronic computing device; at least one network device; 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 network and 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, one or more vehicles with: a refrigerated compartment with products; a GPS unit; and a system control and communication device and display; the refrigerated compartment including 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 refrigerated compartment of the one or more vehicles and further limiting application of the abstract idea to vehicles which are equipped with a GPS unit and a system control and communication device and display. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] and a dashboard accessed by parties remotely that are involved with the system/method limitations are limiting the abstract idea of “parties monitoring a product temperature during a shipping process and rearranging a delivery route” to computer environments as the dashboard is used to provide parties with an opportunity to stop a route from becoming non-compliant and both the dashboard and the system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] are used to communicate actions regarding the route and/or integrated with mobile workflow solutions for routing.
The inlet air sensor and return air sensor of a refrigeration unit are limiting the abstract idea of “monitoring” to data such as temperature data collected by the inlet air sensor and return air sensor of a refrigeration unit because limiting application of the abstract idea to temperature monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Additionally, receiving information from an inlet air sensor and a return air sensor of a refrigeration unit may be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity specifically a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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, field of use, or extra-solution activity 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; at least one network device; 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 network 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.
Again, the one or more vehicles with: a refrigerated compartment with products; a GPS unit; and a system control and communication device and display; the refrigerated compartment including 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 refrigerated compartment of the one or more vehicles and further limiting application of the abstract idea to vehicles which are equipped with a GPS unit and a system control and communication device and display.
The system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] and a dashboard accessed by parties remotely that are involved with the system/method limitations are limiting the abstract idea of “parties monitoring a product temperature during a shipping process and rearranging a delivery route” to computer environments as the dashboard is used to provide parties with an opportunity to stop a route from becoming non-compliant and both the dashboard and the system control and communication device and display [on the vehicle] are used to communicate actions regarding the route and/or integrated with mobile workflow solutions for routing.
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 inlet air sensor and return air sensor of a refrigeration unit are limiting the abstract idea of “monitoring” to data such as temperature data collected by the inlet air sensor and return air sensor of a refrigeration unit because limiting application of the abstract idea to temperature monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Additionally, receiving information from an inlet air sensor and a return air sensor of a refrigeration unit may be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity specifically a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data. “Receiving” is a equivalent to the computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which is a computer function that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 additional elements 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, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity 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 refrigerated 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.
Further limiting the abstract idea of “monitoring” to data such as temperature data collected by the at least one hardware temperature probe and/or at least one virtual temperature probe because limiting application of the abstract idea to temperature monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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 of the refrigerated compartment. 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. Further limiting the abstract idea of “monitoring” to data such as temperature data collected by the refrigeration unit sensor and return air sensor because limiting application of the abstract idea to temperature monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The application of the abstract idea is limited to monitoring product temperatures of products located within a refrigerated compartment/unit which may be further limited to a refrigeration unit (that includes at least one refrigeration unit sensor). 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights