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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant’s communication filled on 09/17/2025.
37 CFR § 1.105 - Requirement for Information
Claims 1,11 were amended to recite, among others: “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, , social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”, for subsequent “remediating”. Examiner follows MPEP 704.11(b) III and submits that the Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. Examiner’s search appears to suggest Applicant publicly used a product or service to obtain or gather social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps as evidenced by at least the following references
- #1: “How USPS used review data to improve customer service and reduce costs, thesilab webpages, May 17, 2023”, emphasis on the excerpts of p.2 last ¶-p.3 immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- #2: Business Intelligence at USPS Listening and Insights, youtube excerpt, Onclusive Social channel, May 8, 2019
PNG
media_image4.png
1132
866
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide any additional citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps
For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner requests brochures, manuals, white papers, training materials, demos, sales presentations or the like related to the aforementioned product(s) software and/or other software directed to the gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art of gathering social data to map customer complaints and generate heat maps.
-> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure. The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained will be accepted as a complete response to the requirement for that item. This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete response to the enclosed Office action must include a complete response to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is 3 months.
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
I. Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8-11,17-20 have been amended and Claims 2,12 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are currently pending of which:
Claims 3,4,13,14 have been withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1,5-11,15-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
II. Objections to Claims 1,11 17
Objections to Claims1,11 17 in the previous act are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment adopted in the same manner or similar manner as suggested by the Examiner.
III. 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 8-10,18-20
35 USC 112 (b) rejection of claims 8-10,18-20 in the previous act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment as suggested by Examiner.
IV. 35 USC 101 rejection
Applicant focuses the 101 arguments on two clauses at independent Claims 1,11:
Clause [1]: “generating, by the electronic processor, a heatmap representing the
electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed”
Clause [2]: “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic
region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot, wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node”
Step 2A prong one: Remarks 09/17/2025 p.7 last ¶-p.8 ¶1 argues that Clause [1] of “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” is recited with specificity and cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Next, Remarks 09/17/2025 p.8 ¶ 2 -p.9 ¶2 argues that Clause [2] of “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” at independent Claims 1,11 concerns logistical systems and are real-world physical changes to a logistical node’s sorting machines that do not fall within the abstract organizing human activities or mental processes.
Examiner considered the prong 1 argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Clause [1]: Examiner first points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B, ¶1 stating: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea”. Here, aside from allegation of specificity Remarks 09/17/2025 p.7 last ¶-p.8 ¶1 provides not rebuttal why “generating...a heat map” including displaying “operational issue hotspot” cannot be performed by physical aids such as pen and paper.
Examiner responds to the specificity argument above by pointing to MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 which states that narrow laws that have limited applications are still ineligible. Thus, no matter how narrow, limited or specific the “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying “operational issue hotspot” “corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region” would be, it would not preclude the claims from reciting describing or at least setting forth the abstract exception. In fact MPEP 2106.04 I cites Myriad 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 to clarify just that; namely that an alleged “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. The Myriad rationale supra was corroborated by SAP Am Inc v InvestPic cited by MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”. Here, following the MPEP 2106.04 I, the Examiner finds that no matter how allegedly specific the “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying “operational issue hotspot” would be, its character remains undeniably abstract.
Thus, the Examiner has successfully demonstrated that “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” can be performed using physical aids such as pen and paper no matter of the specificity of the “operational issue hotspot”.
Also, separate from the pen and paper test above, the Examiner reminds Applicant that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III does not limit the use of physical aids to only pen and paper, but rather expands said test at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C#1,#2,#3, to also include computer aids, such as:
- #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer,
- # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment,
- # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.
Here, the Applicant provides no rebuttal as to why “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” cannot be performed by aid of a computer such as a tool or computer environment. This finding is the more important, as Mary Beth Levin, one of the current inventors of the current Application, shows that “generating ... a heat map” of issues can be performed by commercially available computer tools or environments, as demonstrated by at least the following publication “How USPS used review data to improve customer service and reduce costs, thesilab webpages, May 17 2023” emphasis on page 3 ¶1 where Mary Beth Levin’s team is cited as having used the commercially available Khoros as social customer response tool that gathered unstructured customer data such as reviews sites to forums to comments, sections on news sites, and Yext [another known computer tool] to pull on line reviews, and finally Tableau [as yet another known computer tool] to visualize the data on a heatmap. Upon a closer investigation, the Examiner finds that neither the Applicant of the current Application, nor any of the current inventors, appear to have invented Khoros, Yext, Tableau computer tools, nor does the Applicant of the current Application or the current inventors appear to allege as much.
In conclusion, Examiner successfully demonstrated that “generating ... a heat map”, including displaying an “operational issue hotspot” can be performed using computer aids, based on a preponderance of both legal evidence [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3] and factual evidence [Khoros, Yext, Tableau], no matter of the specificity of the “operational issue hotspot”.
Clause [2]: Aside from a mere allegation, the Applicant provides no evidence for real-world physical changes that would render independent Claims 1,11 eligible as the result of the “increasing the number of sorting machines”. Rather the remed[y] of the “operational issue” of backlog demand (i.e. “delay” in light of preamble of independent Claims 1,11, “issue resolution times” at the first limitation of independent Claims 1,11) based on increased labor supply, remains an issue of microeconomics, namely supply versus demand management, balancing, judgement or mitigation, no matter if said increase in supply, is intended as the supply of human labor or intended as supply of machinery, as currently claimed. Thus, it is reasoned that “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” clearly falls within the fundamental economic and/or commercial practices and principles of Certain methods of Organizing Human Activities as tested at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A,B.
This legal finding is further corroborated by Michael Ritter, Assessing the Impact of the United States Postal System and Election Administration on Absentee and Mail Voting in the 2012 to 2020 U.S. Midterm and Presidential Elections, Election Law Journal Volume 22, Number 2, 2023 p.7 2nd column citing Tierney, John T. 1988. The U.S. Postal Service: The Status and Prospects of a Free Enterprise. Auburn Publishing House at 28 to stress that The Postal Reorganization Act also vested ultimate authority for various postal decisions—including making final decisions on postal rate changes, DECIDING ON WHETHER MORE OR LESS MAIL SORTING MACHINES ARE NEEDED" (emphasis added). A similar corroborating disclosure is provided by the following refence: USPS brings new package sorting machine to Colorado Springs, youtube, KRDO13 Colorado Springs Channel, Aug 12, 2021, Slides 1-5, showing the increase of sorting machines in Colorado Springs area as a result of increased demand.
To be also clear, the evidence set forth by Michael Ritter or Tierney, John T or Mary Beth Levin or any other author above, are presented by Examiner as mere corroborating examples to validate the abstract character of the argued limitations, and that of the claims as a whole. Such references are not necessarily used to make a case for or against novelty or obviousness, because the two statutes are different. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71,101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 to show that "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”. Also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶1-¶2 clarifying that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as a building block of the modern economy.
Here, following the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶1-¶2 test above, the Examiner finds the at least Clause [2] of “remediating an operational issue at a logistical node” such as “increasing the number of sorting machines” at independent Claims 1,11, is an exemplary building block of the modern economy. At most the Applicant’s attempts to remedy an entrepreneurial and abstract concept. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(a) II is clear that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not improvement in technology. Similarly MPEP 2106.04 I cites “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to stress that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. Thus, Examiner submits, in the arguendo, just for the sake of the argument, that even a groundbreaking, innovative or brilliant system, method and system of “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” to allow for “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot” as recited at independent Claims 1,11 and raised by Applicant above at Clause [2] would similarly not render the claims patent eligible. Simply put, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, they would still represent a fundamental economic practice or principle and/or building block of modern economy which still falls well-within the realm of the abstract idea. The “Myriad” rationale supra was also corroborated by SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”. In a similar vein MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to show that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content, falls within the abstract realm of the abstract exception. It then follows that here the acquiring or obtaining of feedback or content form sources such as email, phone messages web-based revies or social media to display hotspot heatmap or updates about said content would not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Based on the preponderance of evidence shown above, it is reasoned that Clause [1] and Clause [2] above, do not preclude the independent Claims 1,11 from reciting, or at a minimum describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Step 2A prong two: Remarks 09/17/2025 p.9 ¶3-p.10 ¶ cites Original Specification ¶ [0013] to argue that Clauses [1] and [2] above, solve the prior art problem of correctly identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area. Specifically, Applicant argues generating a heat map according to Clause [1] and remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines according to Clause [2] is an improvement over prior art techniques, in that it has been empirically shown to decrease negative feedback citing Original Specification ¶ [0056]-¶ [0058] and has even been recognized by awards granted by national organizations citing Original Specification ¶ [0055].
Examiner fully considered the Applicant prong two argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating all findings and rationales above. Examiner again notes that most if not nearly all, of the argued features of generating a heat map according at Clause [1] and remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines at Clause [2], appear to be integral components of the abstract exception itself (prong one), as opposed to additional elements (prong two) other than the abstract idea itself.
Such entrepreneurial, economic, commercial and thus abstract character of the claims is corroborated by the Applicant’s own admission of the commercial benefit at Original Specification ¶ [0055] “An embodiment of the invention has achieved commercial success, and a summary of various quantification thereof and an associated award follows” and cited by Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2. Yet, MPEP 2106.05(a) II is clear that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not improvement in technology. Similarly MPEP 2106.04 I cites “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to stress that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. Thus, the Examiner submits, in the arguendo, that even a groundbreaking, innovative or brilliant system and method for “generating a heat map” (Clause [1]) and “remediating an operational issue by physically increasing the number of operational sorting machines” (Clause [2]) should similarly not render the claims patent eligible. Simply put, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, the features raised by Applicant above, still represent a fundamental, economic practices or principles and/or building blocks of modern economy which still fall well-within the realm of the abstract exception. The “Myriad” rationale was corroborated by SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C (i). Specifically, in SAP Am Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit clarified: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”.
Here, similar to “SAP”, Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2 argue in favor of solving the prior art problem of correctly identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area, and thus should be interpreted as improvement of the abstract idea itself as opposed to improvement to actual technology. In fact MPEP 2106.05(a) I cites BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688,1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); to show that providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, would represent an improvement to the information stored by a database, which is not equivalent to improvement in database’s functionality. Here identifying of a hotpot for subsequent remediation as argued by Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶2 would at most represent improvement to business information, not an improvement in actual technology.
As per Applicant’s reliance on Examples 47 and 48 at Remarks 09/17/2025 p.9 ¶3-p.10 ¶1, the Examiner reminds that all 101 examples provided by USPTO, including Examples 47 and 48 are hypothetical and non-precedential. USPTO “2019 PEG, 101 Examples 37-42 document entitled “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” p.1, ¶1 2nd sentence. “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG” corroborating “May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection”, p.5 ¶2 Section C: “USPTO issued examples in conjunction with the Interim Eligibility Guidance, including […] July 2015 Update Appendix I: Examples […]; These examples, many of which are hypothetical, were drafted to show exemplary analyses under the Interim Eligibility Guidance and are intended to be illustrative of the analysis only. While some of the fact patterns draw from U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the examples do not carry the weight of court decisions. Therefore, the examples should not be used as a basis for a subject matter eligibility rejection. Similarly see July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pertaining to Examples 47-49, p.1, ¶1, 2nd sentence: “The examples below are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted below in the Issue Spotting Chart”.
In any event here, the claims are irreconcilably different than Examples 47 and 48. Specifically, at no point do the claims recite anything remotely analogous to detecting potentially malicious network packets and taking real-time remedial actions, including dropping suspicious packets and blocking traffic from suspicious source addresses as in hypothetical Claim 3 of nonprecedential Example 47. Also, at no point do the current claims recite anything remotely analogous to the technical improvements of how the [deep neural network] DNN is trained on source separation aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which were then converted into separate speech signals in the time domain to generate a sequence of words from the spectral features, thereby making individual transcription of each separated speech signal possible as in claim 3 of USPTO’s Example 48.
Rather, as explained by Applicant at Remarks 09/17/2025 p. 10 ¶2, the independent claims are merely identifying and acting on feedback regarding a wide geographic area, when some amount of negative feedback is always present given the size of the area, possibly using computer aids [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C] and/or an additional computer-based element [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)] to achieve a desired, yet abstract, entrepreneurial, commercial goal or objective, as read in light of the Original Specification ¶ [0055].
In conclusion, Examiner submits that the argued limitations still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong 1), with no additional, computer-based elements, capable to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2), and for similar reasons incapable to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, the argued claims are patent ineligible.
V. The Cited Art Fails to Teach or Suggest the Claimed Obtaining
Remarks 09/17/2025 p.10 ¶3-¶4 argues that since claims 1,9 have now been amended to remove recitation of “delivery delay times” in the first limitation of: “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, , social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”, the primary reference of Vaidyanathan et al US 20230169447 A1 by FedEx hereinafter FedEx does not teach said “obtaining” limitation.
Applicant’s argument V. is considered by is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner now relies on Glissmann US 20120253858 A1 to teach or at least suggests:
- “wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews” (Glissmann ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: A target business architecture describes the products and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, performance, and geographic aspects of the business environment, based on business principles, business goals, and strategic drivers. ¶ [0033] 2nd, 4th sentences At step (216), the manager selects a social media metric type use to create social media metric instances. Examples of social media metric types include, but are not limited to… sentiment…Sentiment is a characteristic that provides a score of how often products have been mentioned [interpreted as reviewed] positively, neutrally, or negatively by the social media. ¶ [0040] 8th sentence: For example, sentiment may be determined based upon positive or negative words present within the returned hits) “social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings”;
Thus, the prior art teaches or suggests the contested “obtaining” limitation.
VI. The Cited Art Fails to Teach or Suggest the Claimed Remediating
Remarks 09/17/2025 p.11-p.13 ¶3 argues the prior art does not teach or suggests
- “remediating an operational issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot, wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” [bolded emphasis added]
Applicant’s argument VI. is considered but is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Vaidyanathan et al US 20230169447 A1 by FedEx hereinafter FedEx still teaches:
- “remediating an operation issue at the logistical node in the geographic region that corresponds to the operational issue hotspot
(FedEx ¶ [0101] 5th sentence: learning the points of failure by facility, by facility type, by scan type, by customer, by original/destination pairs and so forth allows the user to consider remedial actions to improve operations of logistics network 100). However,
FedEx does not explicitly recite: “wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” as claimed. Nevertheless
Jory Heckman, Judge rules USPS can move limited mail sorting machines to improve service, April 6th, 2021 hereinafter Heckman in analogous mail operations teaches/suggests:
- “wherein the remediating comprises increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (Heckman p.1 ¶2 UPS move some of its sorting equipment under conditions necessary to improve service overall and to accommodate unprecedented growth in package value. p.2 ¶5, ¶7 USPS can move mail-processing machines to facilities with greater need, to ensure the Postal Service’s machines are pale where they are needed most).
Thus, the prior art teaches or at least suggests the contested “remediating” limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,5-11,15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1,11 are independent and have been amended to each recite, among others: “A method of detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the method comprising:” (independent Claim 1) / “A system for detecting and remediating logistical operational delays, the system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by the electronic processor cause the electronic processor to perform actions comprising” (independent Claim 11)
- “obtaining”, “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region, wherein the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, ”, (Claims 1,11)
Since the body of independent Claims 1,11 no longer recite “delivery delay times”, while the preamble of independent Claims 1,11 still recite “method” and “system” of “detecting and remediating logistical operational delays”, it is now unclear as to the metes and bounds that said independent Claims 1,11 are intended to cover as tested per MPEP 2173.02.
Claims 1,11 are recommended to be amended to each recite at the preamble: A method of detecting and remediating logistical an operational issue , the method comprising: (independent Claim 1) / “A system for detecting and remediating logistical an operational issue , the system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that when executed by the electronic processor cause the electronic processor to perform actions comprising” (independent Claim 11)
Claims 5-10 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Claims 15-20 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 11.
Clarification and/or correction is/are required.
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 1,5-11,15-20 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, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of “remediating logistical operational delays” at the preamble and last limitation of independent Claims 1,11 and exemplified as “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” at independent Claims 1,11. This describe or set forth the risk mitigation of the fundamental economical practices [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] as part of the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II], with the term fundamental not used in the sense of being old or well-known but as building block of modern economy [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2]. Here a fundamental concepts of economic or supply management for “hotspot” demand, interpretable as risk mitigation of “remediating logistical operational delays” (independent Claims 1,11) is exemplified as “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (Claims 1,11) as such fundamental building blocks of modern economy. Further, such risk mitigation of “remediating logistical operational delays” is based on “operational issue hotspot” [risk] “corresponding to a logistical node” [or business component] “in the geographic region” (Claims 1,11), with such “logistical node” exemplified to comprise “hub or a distribution center” (dependent Claims 6,16) as confirmation for the business components and associated business relationships. All these set forth equally commercial operations or relationships [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] of the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II]. At their turn, such operations are based on business interactions [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] or social interactions or activities [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C] set forth as “electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11), and “operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10, 20).
Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A vi cites Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to state that using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, is another example of fundamental economic principles or practices, while MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B cites In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979) to state that using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, is also an example of commercial interactions. It then follows that here “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback; and determining the geographic parts corresponding to the package tracking information” (dependent Claims 8,18), “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback; and displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19) is not meaningfully different than the abstract marking communicating information about the mail object in “Secured Mail Solutions” supra, while the racking is not meaningfully different than the abstract, algorithmic determining of visits by a business representative to a client, as in “Maucorps” supra.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence to state that the subgroupings of fundamental economical practices, commercial interactions of sales activities and business relations, cover activity that involves multiple people and that certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the Certain methods of organizing human activity.
It then follows that here “obtaining, by an electronic processor, electronic operational feedback” “comprises at least one of customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times” (independent Claims 1,11), “customer email messages or customer phone messages” (dependent Claims 8-10, 18-20), would not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C which cites BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286,127 USPQ2d 1688,1691 to state that considering historical usage information while inputting data is an example of managing relationships or interactions which also falls within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C cites Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to state that acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content without interfering with the person’s primary activity also falls within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
It then follows that “obtaining” or acquiring content as “electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” at independent Claims 1,11, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, as “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” at independent Claims 1,11, then updated version of the previously-acquired content, as “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” at dependent Claims 7,17 when the information source updates its content, here by “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications” at dependent Claims 7,17 would also fall within the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a) last ¶: “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings”. Based on this, Examiner submit that the claims could be also argued to describe or set forth observation, evaluation and judgement of the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping. as enumerated by MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) III. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A ¶7-¶8 cites Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to state that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of collection and analysis is example of mental process.
- Such collecting or observation is set forth as “obtaining” “electronic operational feedback associated with logistics in a geographic region”, “comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11), “obtaining second electronic operational feedback comprising social media communications” (dependent Claims 7,17)
- Such analysis or evaluation is set forth as “generating”, “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” Claims 1,11)
- Such judgment is set forth the broad recitation of “remediating”, (Claims 1,11)
- Such display of certain results of the collection and analysis, are set forth here by “displaying heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11), “heatmap is partitioned according to ZIP Codes” (dependent Claims 5,15), “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7,17), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20).
Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, 4th bullet point cites Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359 to state that a post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network recites mental processes. It then follows that here recitations of “the logistical node comprises a hub or a distribution center” (dependent Claims 6, 16) and “increasing a number of operational sorting machines at the logistical node” (independent Claims 1, 11) as “remediating” based on “the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11) could also be argued to recite, describe or set forth the abstract mental processes.
Equally important, the fact that “obtaining” the abstract “electronic operational feedback”, and generating and “displaying the “heatmap” are performed using “electronic processor” (independent Claims 1,11), and not by pen and paper, do not necessarily preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract idea because according to MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, are all considered to still recite the abstract idea. For example, MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) III C #2 cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit found ineligible the analysis of information according to one of several rules related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive that accessing, compiling and combining information from disparate information sources to generate a full picture of a activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like, render the claims less abstract and eligible. It then follows that here, the access, compilation and combination of information for “generating” a full picture or “heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11), “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7, 17), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20) would similarly not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract idea.
In an abundance of caution, the use of computer aids, as identified and tested above with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III #1,#2,#3, will more granularly tested below.
For now, it is clear, that given the preponderance of legal evidence above, the claims’ character as a whole is undeniably abstract. (Step 2A prong one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, to merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow the abstract character of the claims to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
Here, “electronic processor” at independent Claims 1,11, instruct[ed] according to the “non-transitory computer readable medium” at independent Claim 11, was previously identified as a computer aid in performing the abstract idea. Now, even when construed as additional computer-based element, it will still not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f) (i)1, (iii)2 and v3 the functionality of said “electronic processor” would represent applying a business method on general purpose computer, further including monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer, and tailoring information and provide it to user on a generic computer.
Here, such applying of a business method is represented by “remediating logistical operational delays” (independent Claims 1,11).
Here such monitoring audit log data is represented by “the electronic operational feedback comprises at least one of: customer email messages, customer phone messages, web-based customer reviews, social media communication issue resolution times, or employment satisfaction ratings” (independent Claims 1,11).
Here, such tailoring of information and providing it on a computer is represented by the capabilities of “the electronic processor” “generating” “a heatmap representing the electronic operational feedback for the geographic region, wherein an operational issue hotspot corresponding to a logistical node in the geographic region is displayed” (independent Claims 1,11). The same rationale would apply to “displaying a second heatmap representing the second operation feedback” (dependent Claims 7,9), “displaying a second heatmap representing a frequency of the tag for the geographic region” (dependent Claims 9,19), “displaying a second heatmap representing operational feedback response times” (dependent Claims 10,20) assuming, in the arguendo, their computerized implementation.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1 is also clear that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) represent invocation of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical appclaition. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1-¶2 cites TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to state that the combination of a computer server and telephone unit, where the telephone unit is used to make calls and transmitting information, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information, are examples of merely applying the abstract idea. Thus, Examiner submits, in the arguendo, that even if Claims 8,9,18,19 would be computerized in “extracting package tracking information from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims 8,18) and “extracting a tag from the electronic operational feedback” (dependent Claims 9,19) such recitations would still represent examples of extracting classification information from received data, which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by similar reasons as those of TLI Communications cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1.
Alternatively, the “electronic processor” at independent Claims 1,11, could be viewed as an example of narrowing to a technological environment the combination of collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, as identified above. Yet, according to MPEP 2106.05(h) vi4 the narrowing of the combination of collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The same field of use or technological environment would apply to the “increasing a number of operational sorting machines”, as analogous to human labor, “at the logistical node”
In conclusion, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that the general level of computerization, even when considere