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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “In particular, amended independent claims 1, 21, and 26 recite specific technical operations that go well beyond any method of organizing human activity. As amended, claims 1, 21, and 26 recite, inter alia, "obtaining, using the remote central management system, sensor data from a temperature sensor associated with the shipment mix, wherein the sensor data from the temperature sensor indicates a rise in temperature of the product beyond a preset threshold," "in response to the rise in temperature beyond the preset threshold, dynamically updating, using the remote central management system and in real time, the set of feasible movement route layouts," and then "modifying, using the remote central management system, the second location to a third location based on the recommended movement route" and "modifying, using the remote central management system, the shipment mix based on the recommended movement route." These limitations describe a concrete, sensor-driven technical mechanism (i.e., detecting a physical temperature excursion during transport, dynamically re-optimizing candidate routes in real time in response, and then physically rerouting the shipment to a different destination and modifying the shipment contents) that cannot reasonably be characterized as a fundamental economic practice, a commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships.” The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are directed to a combination of steps combined with additional elements that are purposed to use varied data to move shipments. This falls squarely into certain methods of organizing human activity, namely marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations.
Applicant further argues that the claims as amended provide a practical application. While the Examiner notes that there is an element of dynamic decisioning and the intention to at some point re-route a shipment, as the claims atand, there is merely an output to a computer screen. The output may even be a printed report, but this would not be considered a practical application. Perhaps if the output actually caused a physical movement or re-routing directed by a computer the amended would rise the the level of a practical application. As it stands, it is tantamount to displaying the solution to a rerouting problem. This is not like Example 40 as Applicant attempts to assert.
The Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. When looked at individually or as an ordered combination, the recited claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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, 4-6, 10-13, 21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
extracting, first data from at least one local facility management of a set of local facility management, wherein each of the set of local facility management is associated with at least one of a plurality of facilities located at different locations, wherein the first data comprises a first location and a second location associated with a shipment mix, wherein the shipment mix comprises a plurality of products and is to be transported amongst the plurality of facilities;
acquiring, second data associated with a product amongst the plurality of products and comprising hierarchical information of the product and a historical movement route information of the product;
determining, a derived inventory of the plurality of products available within each facility amongst the plurality of facilities based on the second data associated with the product;
generating, a reconciled output by inputting the derived inventory and an actual inventory of each facility into an inventory model, wherein the actual inventory of each facility is obtained corresponding to each facility, and
wherein the reconciled output is indicative of an inventory related discrepancy has occurred;
generating, a set of feasible movement route layouts by inputting the reconciled output and the second data;
obtaining, sensor data associated with the shipment mix, wherein the sensor data indicates a rise in temperature of the product beyond a preset threshold;
in response to the rise in temperature beyond the preset threshold, dynamically updating, the set of feasible movement route layouts;
selecting, a recommended movement route from the set of feasible movement route layouts for transporting the shipment mix; and
modifying, the second location to a third location based on the recommended movement route;
modifying, the shipment mix based on the recommended movement route; and
outputting, the recommended movement route
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “remote central management system, processor, computing device, route optimizing module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, inventory database, facility and product”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “remote central management system, processor, computing device, route optimizing module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, inventory database, facility and product”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (remote central management system, processor, inventory database, computing device, apparatus, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computing device)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(facility, route optimizing module sensors and product)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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 at (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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights