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 .
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) and does not integrate the exception into a practical application, nor does it recite significantly more than the exception itself.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1–18 are directed to a system and therefore fall within a statutory category (machine).Accordingly, Step 1 is satisfied, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1–18 are analyzed together, as they recite substantially similar subject matter focused on logistics management, information processing, and tracking.
Claim 1 recites, in summary:
Routing and optimizing delivery of packages
Grouping packages based on criteria (e.g., ZIP codes)
Tracking logistics in real time
Suggesting placement of packages within containers
These steps constitute mental processes, commercial practices, and data manipulation, which fall under the abstract idea category.
The claims are directed to one or more of the following abstract ideas recognized by the USPTO:
Managing logistics and delivery operations
Organizing, grouping, and tracking items based on information
Optimizing space utilization using calculated dimensions
Providing delivery status notifications
These concepts fall squarely within:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (logistics, shipping, fulfillment), and
Mental processes (collecting, analyzing, and using information)
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims:
Recite generic computing components (“processing circuitry,” “computer program product”)
Use conventional logistics structures (“shipping platforms,” “containers,” “stacking platforms”)
Merely apply the abstract idea using generic technology, without improving that technology
The claims do not:
Improve computer functionality itself
Improve container structures or shipping hardware in a technical way
Provide a specific algorithm or unconventional data structureSolve a technical problem in computer science or engineering
Instead, the claims use computers as tools to perform abstract logistics operations.
Regarding Step 2B
Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements recited in the claims include:
Generic processors
Generic data storage
Conventional containers
Standard identifiers (QR codes, barcodes, RFID)
Conventional tracking and notification systems
These elements:
Are well-understood, routine, and conventional
Merely perform their ordinary functions
Do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea
No Unconventional Arrangement
The combination of elements is a predictable use of prior-art logistics systems, and does not reflect a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement.
Conclusion — Step 2B
Claims 1–18 do not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims:
Further limit the abstract idea using additional data fields, criteria, or identifiers
Add post-solution activity (notifications, tracking access)
Specify conventional hardware variations (container size, stacking)
These limitations do not alter the eligibility analysis, as they:
Do not provide a technical improvement
Do not add an inventive concept
Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims are not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–18 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laverne (US20240140491) in view of Duthu (US20140267776A1).
With respect to claim 1, Laverne discloses an automated logistics and delivery management system comprising processing circuitry executing software instructions to route and optimize delivery of packages, group packages according to delivery criteria, and track logistics in real time (see, ¶¶ [0034]–[0057]).
Laverne further discloses shipping platforms including enclosure bodies and cargo containers for transporting packages, as well as modular and stackable cargo arrangements within such containers (see, ¶¶ [0061]–[0068]).
Laverne does not explicitly disclose capturing package dimensions using image-based sensing for identification and placement optimization.
Duthu discloses a tracking and identification system utilizing image recognition and optical sensing to capture physical characteristics of objects, including size, shape, and dimensional data, for purposes of identification, tracking, and spatial analysis (see DUTHU, ¶¶ [0028]–[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the image-based identification and dimension-capturing techniques of Duthu into the logistics system of Laverne to improve accuracy of package identification, placement optimization, and tracking, as both references are directed to related fields of automated tracking and logistics optimization. Such a combination merely applies a known sensing technique (Duthu) to a known logistics system (Laverne) to achieve predictable results, namely improved package handling and spatial efficiency.
With respect to claim 2, Laverne further discloses grouping packages based on geographic delivery criteria, including delivery regions and locations (¶ [0048]).
With respect to claim 3, Laverne further discloses sequencing packages for loading and unloading based on delivery order (¶ [0051]).
With respect to claim 4, Laverne further discloses capturing object dimensions using image recognition and sensor data (¶¶ [0031]–[0034]).
With respect to claim 5, Laverne, in view of Duthu, teaches optimizing container space using known dimensional data to improve packing efficiency (Laverne ¶ [0068]; Duthu ¶ [0036]).
With respect to claim 6, Laverne further discloses arranging packages based on delivery sequence and destination order (¶ [0051]).
With respect to claim 7, Laverne further discloses notifying customers of delivery status and predictive delays based on real-time tracking data (¶¶ [0057]–[0059]). Incorporation of DUTHU’s identification accuracy would further enhance such notifications.
With respect to claims 8-11, Duthu further discloses machine-readable identifiers, including barcodes and visual tags, applied to tracked objects and surfaces to facilitate recognition and tracking (¶¶ [0028]–[0030]). It would have been obvious to apply such identifiers to the platforms and containers of Laverne to facilitate tracking and identification.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Laverne further discloses electronic tracking of packages, Duthu teaches the use of electronic and machine-readable tags for object identification. It would have been obvious to include RFID or equivalent electronic tags in the logistics system of Laverne to enhance automated identification and tracking.
With respect to claims 14-18, Laverne further discloses real-time tracking access (¶ [0057]), standardized and modular shipping container configurations (¶¶ [0062]–[0065]), and stackable cargo platforms (¶ [0068]). Incorporation of Duthu’s identification techniques does not alter these teachings but merely improves tracking fidelity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627