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 the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, specifically under Step 2A Prong One, that the claims do not recite the abstract idea groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Examiner disagrees. The invention is drawn to cold chain logistics providers that generate and supply temperature control agents, such as dry ice, to meet the cold chain requirements from shippers (see Spec. [0017]). The invention aims to solve the problem of optimally producing, storing, and applying said thermal agents in a cold chain system by devising a cognitive solution which centrally estimates and forecasts the optimal quantity of thermal agents while also considering the regulatory requirements and cost on storage and transit, as opposed to traditional manual decision making along with non-standard tools and/or static rules across different facilities to provide icing and re-icing demands (see Spec. [0018] and [0021]). The limitations are drawn to controlling chain temperature optimization in shipping/logistics, and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, etc.), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a shipment request and applying an amount of thermal agent for the shipment to reach a final destination based on optimal quantity of the thermal agent. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing analyzing the shipment request, generating one or more estimated metrics associated with the shipment based on the analyzing, and applying an amount of thermal agent for the shipment to reach a final destination based on optimal quantity of the thermal agent. The claim recites an abstract idea. The examples in the MPEP are simply examples. The Office Action has identified the limitations that directly correspond to commercial interactions, managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions. Applicant states that cold chain temperature optimization using a cognitive thermal agent estimation system is different from the examples, however, it is the specific claim limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant appears to suggest that the claimed invention cannot fall within an abstract idea grouping because it does not precisely match the examples provided. This argument is not persuasive. The examples set forth are illustrative only and are not intended to be exhaustive or limiting. A claim need not mirror a listed example verbatim to fall within a recognized category of abstract ideas. Rather the inquiry is whether the abstract idea set forth or described in the claim is of the same nature as the concepts identified within the grouping. Applicant’s argument that the claim limitations cannot be performed in the human mind is also unpersuasive. The limitations describe analyzing (observation and evaluation) various information and making judgments or opinions based on the observed and evaluated data. The use of computer components does not take the claims out of the mental processes grouping. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action fails to consider the claims as a whole is unfounded. The entirety of the claims are considered, properly rejected, and a full 101 analysis was conducted on the record.
Applicant argus that the claims are patentable because they provide a high level of specify to offer a practical application. Examiner disagrees. A specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP §2106.04(d)). The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which include: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In the applicant’s invention, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: one or more processors (claims 1, 9, 17), one or more computer-readable memories (claim 1), one or more computer-readable storage media (claims 1 and 17), computer program product (claim 17), one or more memories (claim 17), a cognitive thermal agent estimation system which is an AI system (claims 1, 9, and 17), an estimation model, and the computer system (claim 1). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the cognitive thermal agent estimation system/AI model and estimation model amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (optimizing cold chain temperature control in shipping/logistics). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they do not preempt a judicial exception. The argument is unpersuasive. As stated by the CAFC, “while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-8 recite a system (i.e. machine), claims 9-16 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 17-20 recite a computer program product (i.e., article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations of receiving a shipment request associated with a shipment; analyzing the shipment request wherein one or more facilities information is received and included in the analyzing; generating one or more estimated metrics by leveraging an [estimation model] associated with the shipment based on the analyzing; create an original route for the shipment request based on the analyzing; deriving an optimal quantity of thermal agent with [a cognitive thermal agent estimation system] using the estimated metrics associated with the shipment, wherein the [cognitive thermal agent estimation system is an AI (Artificial Intelligence) system] leveraging the [estimation model] and the optimal quantity of thermal agent includes at least, an origin quantity of thermal agent at the origin and facility quantity of thermal agent located at the one or more facilities; applying an amount of the thermal agent for the shipment to reach a final destination based on the optimal quantity of the thermal agent and levels of thermal agent located at the one or more facilities; adjusting the amount of the thermal agent; identifying that the amount of the thermal agent was over-adjusted and auto-calibrating the [estimation model]; and remove an excess amount of the thermal agent. The limitations are drawn to controlling chain temperature optimization in shipping/logistics, and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, etc.), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a shipment request and applying an amount of thermal agent for the shipment to reach a final destination based on optimal quantity of the thermal agent. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing analyzing the shipment request, generating one or more estimated metrics associated with the shipment based on the analyzing, and applying an amount of thermal agent for the shipment to reach a final destination based on optimal quantity of the thermal agent. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: one or more processors (claims 1, 9, 17), one or more computer-readable memories (claim 1), one or more computer-readable storage media (claims 1 and 17), computer program product (claim 17), one or more memories (claim 17), a cognitive thermal agent estimation system which is an AI system (claims 1, 9, and 17), an estimation model, and the computer system (claim 1). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the cognitive thermal agent estimation system/AI model and estimation model amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (optimizing cold chain temperature control in shipping/logistics). Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above, and recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application found that is related to the applicant’s invention includes Holbrook (US 10,605,674) and MokhtarzadehBahadorani (2022/0252336). Holbrook discloses a system and method that analyzes the temperature profile to determine the best available packaging option to prevent the product's temperature from falling outside of a desired or mandatory cold-chain temperature range. MokhtarzadehBahadorani discloses a system maintaining an initial quantity of mRNA vaccine cargo in an EPS container containing dry ice as a passive coolant during shipment from a manufacturing site, wherein the initial quantity of mRNA vaccine cargo is shipped to a first depot and then repackaged into smaller quantities at one or more additional depots en route to the final destinations. Dry ice can be added or ordered in advance to be available at the next depot for the cargo. Indicators show the status of the cargo and whether it has undergone unacceptable temperature or humidity excursions. Neither reference discloses, individually nor in combination, the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims, including the initial limitations of identifying that the amount of the thermal agent was over-adjusted and removing an excess amount of the thermal agent. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature found that is related to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Application of IoT to Monitor the Shipping of Goods in Maritime Transportation System” (NaimShaikh, 2022). The publication discloses IoT applications for supply chain and logistics management applications to assist with temperature variations, humidity shifts, and vibrations that might devalue the products being carried. The reference does not disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims, including the initial limitations of identifying that the amount of the thermal agent was over-adjusted and removing an excess amount of the thermal agent. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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).
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628