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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 16, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed February 16, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claim 7, 14, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Keeping the foregoing in mind, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity or a mental process or a judicial exception as the claims recite, among other features:
receiving, by a first device and during a first period, first information of at least one first element associated with a user within a first area and second information of at least one second element associated with an object positioned within the first area;
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period; and
transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area, wherein
the first device is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader or transceiver and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) equipped device, the first device being positioned proximate to or within the first area, and
each of the first element and the second element is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon
As noted by the Memorandum, the claims "cannot be practically performed in the human mind." Additionally, the claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols, and do not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Electric Power Group a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, was determined to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, the instant claims are collecting presence information, analyzing it, and transmitting a notification. The mere nominal recitation of a first device, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for tracking objects in an area. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Additionally, reciting "transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area," as recited in claim 1 is unquestionably a practical application, particularly for entities to efficiently process first element and second element (e.g., RFID tag BLE beacons) data without false positives and leverage the processed data to control signal processing protocols of a reader or transceiver device (e.g., an RFID reader or transceiver or a BLE equipped device having a BLE radio and antenna) to transmit a notification indicative of an anomalous object. As such, the claim features eliminate inefficiencies typically experienced by conventional logistics operations systems lacking the aforementioned features and versatility which causes conventional logistics operations systems to provide underwhelming performance and reduce the efficiency and general timeliness of executing and completing logistics operations including the loading of hundreds, if not, thousands of objects into one or more containers for the transportation and distribution of these objects to destination locations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims do not improve the reader or transceiver device themselves and instead apply those functionalities in the context of generating notifications for item tracking. See Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 868 F.3d 1350, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ([The claims] do not improve the functioning of the computer or barcode system itself. Instead, they apply those functionalities in the context of processing return mail.) The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-6 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 8-13 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 15-19 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of tracking the location of an object in an area across time periods, which is a method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for tracking objects in an area. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing the location of users and objects over time to evaluate the tracking of the object. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and a mental process of “tracking the location of an object in an area across time periods,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving first and second information at a first time, determining whether an object is associated with a first area, identifying the at least one second element as anomalous, determining whether the first and second information are received at a second time, and transmitting a notification about the object. The mere nominal recitation of a first device, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: removing anomalous indications, determining whether a period exceeds a threshold, determining whether the first device receives the second information, determining an object is not in an area, and determining whether first information is received in a subsequent period.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements: a first device, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon. These a first device, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The receiving information, gathering presence data using an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon at a first device step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering object location), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of tracking the location of inventory over time in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing inventory management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a first device, a memory, a processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a first device (Specification [0026]), a memory (Specification [0060]), a processor (Specification [0059]), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Specification [0060]), an RFID reader (Specification [0026]), a BLE equipped device (Specification [0026]), an RFID tag (Specification [0029]), and a BLE beacon (Specification [0029]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a first device, a memory, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting receiving information using a first device, gathering presence data using an RFID reader, a BLE equipped device, an RFID tag, and a BLE beacon. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting the inventory tracking field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2014/0209676 A1), hereinafter Reynolds, in view of Apostolos et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0346531 A1), hereinafter Apostolos.
Claim 1.
Reynolds discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device and during a first period, first information of at least one first element associated with a user within a first area and second information of at least one second element associated with an object positioned within the first area (Reynolds [0023] asset includes a vehicle; [0025], [0050] vehicle is a kinematic asset that holds other assets; [0029] fixed and mobile locations have asset identifications and hold other assets with their own identifications; [0051] the relationship between objects in a system is called an Association; [0052] an Operation Association occurs when an RFID reader detects an object is nearby; [0063], [0088] asset registry; [0089] reader in vehicle; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining, based on the second information, whether the object is associated with the first area (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets);
identifying the at least one second element as anomalous when the object is not associated with the first area (Reynolds [0054] do not report ambiguous assets; [0087] asset transfer; [0098] erroneously state that the asset is missing);
determining whether the first device receives the first information during a second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0064] if by 9:00 AM four assets with the attribute of employee are not associated with any assets with the attribute of vehicle, reports engine will generate a report of this information; [0078] convey which assets are missing in the latest inventory from previous inventories); and
Regarding the following limitation:
transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area, wherein
Reynolds discloses transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area (Reynolds [0061], [0064], [0069] reports engine can generate a report conveying that a vehicle moves a predetermined time and/or distance without the detection of an asset by the reporting system of that vehicle; [0078], [0092] polling for assets and report inventory discrepancy). However, Reynolds does not disclose transmitting a notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period and the first device does not receive the first information during the second time period, the notification being indicative of the user not being within the first area and the second element being anomalous such that the object is not associated with the first area and is positioned within the first area, but Apostolos does (Apostolos [0124] Bluetooth sensors track the driver's device leave the car, and another TAG that should not remain in the car, had not moved out with the driver upon exiting, the car could sound a reminder). The known technique using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications of Apostolos, as shown above, is applicable to the system of Reynolds as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are wirelessly tracking different objects in specific areas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications of Apostolos to the RFID tracking system of Reynolds would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Apostolos to the teaching of Reynolds would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such using the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications feature into RFID tracking systems. Further, applying the monitoring information of the area a user is departing to generate tracking notifications to Reynolds, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient generating of leave behind alerts because the system wide polling, used in Reynolds, is not required to logically conclude an item has been left behind thereby reducing the delay for leave behind alerts.
Reynolds discloses:
the first device is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader or transceiver and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) equipped device, the first device being positioned proximate to or within the first area (Reynolds [0030] asset identification is implemented using RFID; [0032], [0033], [0057] reader is an RFID reader in a fixed location; [0059] reader is placed to provide complete coverage of the interior of the vehicle), and
each of the first element and the second element is one of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon (Reynolds [0029]-[0030] assets are identified using machine readable identification and detection technology, such as RFID; [0051] the relationship between objects in a system is called an Association and an infrastructure association occurs when an asset is assigned an RFID label through provisioning).
Claim 2.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
removing the identification of the at least one second element as anomalous when the first device does not receive the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0061] driver can resolve why the missing asset has not been detected; [0087] asset transfer; [0099], [0100] avoid false reporting using location history).
Claim 3.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
determining whether an elapsed time period exceeds a threshold when the first device receives the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the elapsed time period exceeds the threshold (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets); and
determining the object is not positioned within the first area and removing the identification of the at least one second element as anomalous when the first device does not receive the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0084] asset moved from fixed location to a mobile location is reported as removed from the fixed asset inventory and added to the mobile location inventory; [0061] driver can resolve why the missing asset has not been detected; [0087] asset transfer; [0099], [0100] avoid false reporting using location history).
Claim 4.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses:
determining whether an elapsed time period exceeds a threshold when the first device receives the first information during the second time period (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets; [0029], [0094] assets include employees);
determining whether the first device receives the second information during the second time period when the elapsed time period exceeds the threshold (Reynolds [0059], [0061], [0078] reader detects assets within a vehicle periodically to report changes in inventory; [0059], [0061], [0064], [0078] periodic interval; [0059], [0078], [0086], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0095], [0098] polling for assets); and
determining whether the first device receives the first information during another period subsequent to the second time period when the first device receives the second information during the second time period (Reynolds [0098] inventory may erroneously state that the asset is missing when in fact it is simply obscured; [0099] if an asset is detected and reported while a vehicle is moving, it is unlikely that the asset has been removed from the vehicle while it is still moving).
Claim 5.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses wherein transmitting the notification when the first device receives the second information during the second time period comprises:
transmitting the notification to at least one of the first device, a device of the user, a device of another user, a device of the first area, a display of the first area, a display proximate to the first area, and a display of a second area different than the first area, the notification being one or more of an audible indication, text, graphical indication, and a text to voice message (Reynolds [0061] notify a driver using a display device; [0065] presentation component).
Claim 6.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Reynolds discloses wherein the first area is one of
a storage unit affixed to or stored in a vehicle (Reynolds Fig. 3, [0057], [0059] reader is placed to provide complete coverage of the interior of a vehicle), and
a storage area integrated in at least a portion of a vehicle.
Claim 8.
Reynolds discloses a device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer executable instructions (Reynolds [0072]); and
a processor configured to interface with the memory and execute the computer executable instructions to cause the processor to (Reynolds [0072]):
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches the remaining limitations of claim 8 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 9.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 9 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 10.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 10 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 11.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 11 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 12.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 13.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 13 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 15.
Reynolds discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon which (Reynolds [0072]), when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the steps of:
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches the remaining limitations of claim 15 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 16.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 16 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 17.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 18.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 19.
Reynolds in view of Apostolos teaches all the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628