DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim 3 is cancelled and claims 1-2 and 4-8 are amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 filed December 10, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are directed to a system, claim 7 is directed to a method, and claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory storage medium, therefore all the claims are statutory. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1, 7, and 8 recite an abstract idea of information processing for cargo.
The independent claims 1, 7, and 8 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…;
…;
acquire invoice information including a plurality of pieces of purchase data including at least cargo identification information and quantity information, and packing list information including a plurality of pieces of packing data including at least the cargo identification information and the quantity information; and
determine a correlation between the plurality of pieces of purchase data included in the invoice information and the plurality of pieces of packing data included in the packing list information by using a combination of the cargo identification information and the quantity information;
determine pairs of purchase data and packing data, among the plurality of pieces of purchase data and the plurality of pieces of packing data, each pair including a piece of purchase data and a piece of packing data that have a matching combination of the cargo identification information and the quantity information;
generate collective data by collecting other pieces of packing data, among the plurality of pieces of packing data that are not associated with a matching combination, as non-matching packing data;
and generate output information which the purchase data and the packing data forming the determined pairs are associated with each other, wherein the output information is configured to control display of the determined pairs in a first color and the piece of non-matching packing data in a second color.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, information processing for cargo falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites authentication of a user with generally recited computer elements such as a memory and processor, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for information processing for cargo. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory and processor to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2 and 5, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of information processing for cargo, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 4 and 6, although these claims recite a generally recited processor, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of information processing for cargo, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
13. Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Zimberoff et al (US 2010/0268659). Zimberoff et al (US 2010/0268659) is directed to shipment preparation using network resource identifiers in packing lists. Meanwhile, Xisong et al (Intelligent ports based on Internet of Things, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to intelligent ports.
14. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
determine pairs of purchase data and packing data, among the plurality of pieces of purchase data and the plurality of pieces of packing data, each pair including a piece of purchase data and a piece of packing data that have a matching combination of the cargo identification information and the quantity information;
generate output information which the purchase data and the packing data forming the determined pairs are associated with each other, wherein the output information is configured to control display of the determined pairs in a first color and the piece of non-matching packing data in a second color.
15. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
16. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 2 and 4-6 together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests fleshing out the unit terms, cargo identification information, quantity information, and packing list information (and invoice information, and the differences between each).
17. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained. However, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim interpretation, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection with respect to patentability on claim 8 (non-transitory) are found to be convincing, therefore the claim interpretation, 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, and that particular 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (non-transitory regarding claim 8) are hereby withdrawn.
a) Argument #1: Applicant argues claim is directed to more than a mere drafting effort to monopolize a judicial exception
19. The applicant argues that there is a practical application of the judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 2 because it is not monopolizing all possible methods for information processing with cargo. The Examiner respectfully notes that the determination of whether claims include features that are a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea is not a separate analysis, but rather a conclusion that is reached after consideration of prong 2 and recognizing a lack of integration of the claims into a practical application. Applicant’s additional arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims defines patent eligible subject matter.
20. According to the MPEP: “In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014). In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. Similarly, in this case, the abstract idea of information processing with cargo is linked to generally recited devices, therefore, the claims are not meaningfully limiting the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field, nor do they impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
b) Argument #2: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improved user interface)
21. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite a processor and memory, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for information processing with cargo. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of information processing with cargo (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
22. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
23. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, a processor and memory, i.e., that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of information processing with cargo. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., information processing with cargo, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
24. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of information processing with cargo. The applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
c) Argument #3: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
25. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
26. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
27. Here the only additional elements recited in claims 1, 7, and 8 beyond the abstract idea are: a processor and memory, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
28. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Xisong et al (Intelligent ports based on Internet of Things, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
30. 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).
31. 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.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
33. 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.
34. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
35. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627