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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.111 (“Response”) on 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-20 are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, the Court relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, the Court applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Example 47, claim 3, however the importance in this evaluation was “(a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application”. Example 47, claim 3 integrated the additional element of the sorting gate to route the animal into a holding pen, which was not an abstract idea. In this example, it was the integration of the additional element, not the abstract idea which made the claim eligible. The instant claims are different. The step of communicating the unit identification number is an abstract idea, method of organized human activity, which is performed by generic computer components, i.e. “one or more compute processors”, “an inventory database”, “a production database” and “a communications network”.
Applicant argues the 101 rejection is improper in light of Loper, however the MPEP 2106.04(a) states "To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types". Further, the instant claims are not similar to Loper and therefore do not help in determining eligibility of the instant claims.
Applicant argues Kelly fails to teach the conditional requirement to automatically communicate the unit identification number… when the confidence level … exceeds the confidence threshold. However, Kelly teaches “If they are above some threshold (for example 95%), then the individual tracking IDs are associated with the GLOBAL tracking ID assigned when the truck enters the trailer yard. In this case, the Cloud AI System stores the camera specific tracking IDs 1786 and 4716 to Global Tracking ID H42Z337Q1. This same process can be replicated for the trucks move across all cameras in the trailer yard. Thus, a linked list table of all camera 200 specific tracking IDs are associated with one Global ID H42Z337Q1. That Global ID is now linked to all the Trailer Information” (Kelly: ¶ 0126) and “These images can be sent to an OCR Neural Network GPU pool where OCR inferences can be done. High confidence alpha-numeric values returned from the OCR engine can be used for trailer information” (Kelly: ¶0147), so therefore only high confidence trailer information is used and automatically communicated to the cloud AI system for storage.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to accessing, storing, comparing and communicating data, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 8 (and similarly claims 1 and 14) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method by a computing system, the method comprising:
accessing yard check data received from a plurality of sources, the yard check data comprising:
a unit identification number of a particular shipping container of a plurality of shipping containers;
a location of the particular shipping container within a container yard; and
a confidence level; and
for each particular message received from each particular source:
storing the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container in a unit inventory of an inventory database;
comparing the confidence level of the particular message to a confidence threshold for the particular source; and
automatically electronically communicating, across a communications network, the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container for storage in a production database when the confidence level of the particular message exceeds the confidence threshold for the particular source.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an inventory database”, “a production database”, and “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “inventory database”, “production database”, and “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network” language, “comparing the confidence level of the particular message to a confidence threshold for the particular source” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “accessing yard check data received from a plurality of sources, the yard check data comprising: a unit identification number of a particular shipping container of a plurality of shipping containers; a location of the particular shipping container within a container yard; and a confidence level; and for each particular message received from each particular source: storing the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container in a unit inventory; and … communicating… the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container for storage … when the confidence level of the particular message exceeds the confidence threshold for the particular source” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites three additional elements – “an inventory database”, “a production database”, “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network”, “one or more memory units” (claim 1) and “one or more computer processors” (claims 1 and 15). The “inventory database”, “production database”, “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network”, “memory units” and “processors” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the storing, comparing and communicating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the accessing step). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an inventory database”, “a production database”, and “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network”, “memory units” and “processors” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “inventory database”, “production database”, “automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network”, “memory units” and “processors” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0069400 A1 to Kelly et al. (“Kelly”).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
a system comprising (Kelly: ¶¶ 0027-0031, 0065 and 0067 and Fig. 1):
an inventory database storing a unit inventory (Kelly: ¶ 0067 and Fig. 1, 120);
one or more memory units storing a plurality of confidence thresholds (Kelly: ¶¶ 0028-0033); and
one or more computer processors communicatively coupled to the inventory database and the one or more memory units and configured to (Kelly: ¶¶ 0028-0033):
access a plurality of messages received from a plurality of yard check sources (Kelly: Fig. 1, 102), each of the messages comprising yard check data, the yard check data comprising (Kelly: ¶¶0109 and 0125):
a unit identification number of a particular shipping container of a plurality of shipping containers (Kelly: ¶ 0102);
a location of the particular shipping container within a container yard (Kelly: ¶ 0107); and
a confidence level associated with the identification number of the particular shipping container (Kelly: ¶¶ 0102-0103 and 0107 and Fig. 6); and
for each particular message received from each particular yard check source:
store the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container in the unit inventory of the inventory database (Kelly: ¶¶ 0103-0104);
compare the confidence level of the particular message to a confidence threshold for the particular yard check source (Kelly: ¶¶ 0107, 0111, 0124 and 0126); and
automatically electronically communicate, across a communications network, the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container for storage in a production database when the confidence level of the particular message exceeds the confidence threshold for the particular yard check source (Kelly: ¶¶ 0126, 0130, 042 and 0147).
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
wherein the plurality of yard check sources comprises one or more of: a fixed camera; a camera affixed to a ground vehicle; a camera affixed to an aerial vehicle; and a device coupled to one of the plurality of shipping containers (Kelly: ¶¶ 0039 and 0151).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
wherein the plurality of messages are received from the plurality of yard check sources via a distributed event streaming platform (Kelly: ¶ 0090).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to provide a user interface for display on an electronic display, the user interface configured to: display at least a portion of the unit inventory from the inventory database; and permit user modification of the unit inventory (Kelly: ¶¶ 0064, 0068, 0103, 0107, 0109 and 0111).
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
the user interface further configured to provide, for each particular shipping container, a user-selectable element configured to display an image or a video of the shipping container within the container yard (Kelly: ¶¶ 0105-0107 and Fig. 8).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
wherein the location of each particular shipping container in each message received from the plurality of yard check sources comprises: a lot identification; a row identification; and a spot identification (Kelly: ¶¶ 0137 and 0138 and Fig. 17).
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Kelly includes:
wherein the one or more computer processors are further configured to: analyze the particular yard check source against a plurality of hierarchy rules; and electronically communicate, across the communications network, the unit identification number and the location of the particular shipping container for storage in the production database when the analysis of the particular yard check source against the plurality of hierarchy rules indicates that the particular yard check source is at a superior position according to the hierarchy rules than a different yard check source that previously sent yard check data for the particular shipping container (Kelly: ¶¶ 0005, 0041, 0103, 0111, 0124 and 0126).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627