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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 17, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 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 Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. 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 argus that the claims are patentable because they provide “a high level of specificity” 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, 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), an estimation model, a thermal agent forecasting system, a shipment processor, 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 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’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. Further, solving 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 requirement and costs on storage and transit” so as to obviate “operational challenges such as legal and cost implications” at best indicates an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not an improvement computers or technology. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
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).
Claim Objections
Claims 9-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “deriving an optimal quantity of thermal agent and the optimal quantity of thermal agent with a thermal agent forecasting system”. It appears that the second “optimal quantity of thermal agent” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 10-16 are also objected due to their dependency on objected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations “derive an optimal quantity of thermal agent with a thermal agent forecasting system by computing, from the segment specific thermal-agent usage estimates, and the optimal quantity of thermal agent includes at least, an origin quantity of thermal agent at the origin and a facility quantity of thermal agent located at the one or more facilities, wherein the origin quantity and the facility quantity maintain the shipment within prescribed temperature and humidity conditions through the original route while satisfying carrier-transport quantity constraints and facility-storage quantity constraints for the thermal agent”. The bold and italicized portion of the claim limitation is confusing. It appears that the claim was about to disclose the computing elements to derive the optimal quantity of thermal agent, but stops after listing that the computing uses thermal-agent usage estimates, then veers off to what the optimal quantity of thermal agent includes. It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim here. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim to clearly and distinctly claim the elements or steps of the computing. The same issue is present in claims 9 and 14.
Further, claim 9 is ever more confusing. Claim 9 recites “deriving an optimal quantity of thermal agent and the optimal quantity of thermal agent (repeated?) with a thermal agent forecasting system by computing, from the segment specific thermal-agent usage estimates includes, at least, an origin quantity of thermal agent at the origin and a facility quantity of thermal agent located at the one or more facilities”
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.
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 the analyzing extracts shipment metrics comprising package weight, package dimensions, a shipping route, transit times, and a temperature requirement, and identifies, from the shipping route, one or more intermediate facilities having re-icing capability; generating one or more estimated metrics by leveraging an [estimation model] associated with the shipment based on the analyzing, wherein generating the one or more estimated metrics includes, for each route segment between an origin and a next one of the one or more intermediate facilities or a final destination, generating a segment specific thermal-agent usage estimate based on (i) the shipment metrics, (ii) a temperature index of the route segment, and (iii) forecasting information for the route segment; creating an original route for the shipment request based on the analyzing; deriving an optimal quantity of thermal agent with a [thermal agent forecasting system] by computing, from the segment specific thermal-agent usage estimates, and the optimal quantity of thermal agent includes at least, an origin quantity of thermal agent at the origin and a facility quantity of thermal agent located at the one or more facilities, wherein the origin quantity and the facility quantity maintain the shipment within prescribed temperature and humidity conditions through the original route while satisfying carrier-transport quantity constraints and facility-storage quantity constraints for the thermal agent; 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, wherein applying the amount of the thermal agent includes outputting, to a [shipment processor], control data that causes application of the origin quantity at the origin and the facility quantity at each of the one or more facilities; adjusting the amount of the thermal agent, after completion of a route segment, by comparing an actual quantity of thermal agent used for the route segment with the segment specific thermal-agent usage estimate to determine deviation data comprising a deviation value and a reason for deviation; identifying that the amount of the thermal agent was over-adjusted and auto-calibrate the [estimation model] by feeding the deviation data back to the [thermal agent forecasting system] and correcting weightage for estimation parameters; and remove an excess amount of the thermal agent, responsive to an interruption or other change in a shipment plan by determining a revised route and recomputing at least one remaining facility quantity of thermal agent for the revised route. 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, 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), an estimation model, a thermal agent forecasting system, a shipment processor, 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 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. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 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 appear to disclose, 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 appear to 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 appear to 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 appear to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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 3629
Prosecution Insights