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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled by Applicant; therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are currently pending in application 18/585,032.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The previous rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Final Rejection, 3/17/2026), is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment received 8/14/2026 and 8/17/2026.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 11 and 20 have been amended to recite, “the scale management system” which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claims 12 and 14-19 are also rejected as being dependent from claims 11 and 20, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
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 1-2 and 4-10 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 11-12 and 14-19 are directed toward a process (method). Claim 20 is directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 11 and 15 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing information/ organizing data.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 20, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method executed by a hardware processor, the method comprising:
initiating a weighment workflow for cargo carried by a first vehicle, the cargo comprising one or more units; [Certain methods of organizing human activity - A business rule or method of organizing activities]
generating a virtual scale configured to obtain scale data from a physical scale, the physical scale comprising a scale designed to weigh individual cargo units and the virtual scale comprising a software representation of the physical scale, [Certain methods of organizing human activity - Data modeling or simulation]
wherein hardware specifications of the physical scale are defined via the virtual scale; [Certain methods of organizing human activity - organizing information / configuring data]
generating a virtual kiosk corresponding to the virtual scale, the virtual kiosk (operator hut) being configured for use during weighments of the one or more units in the cargo on the physical scale and for associating one or more functionalities and customizable workflows with the scale management system; and [Certain methods of organizing human activity - interacting with data]
generating a master weigh ticket from the virtual kiosk comprising weighment data for the cargo, the weighment data comprising first weighment data for the one or more units in the cargo and second weighment data for a total weighment of the cargo by the physical scale. [Certain methods of organizing human activity - Data manipulation and formatting]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 11, and 20 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 11 and 20.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “scale management system”, a “processor” coupled to memory, a “non-transitory computer readable medium” comprising instructions, a “hardware processor”, a “virtual scale” comprising a software representation of the physical scale, a “virtual kiosk”, and a “mobile device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “scale management system”, a “processor” coupled to memory, a “non-transitory computer readable medium” comprising instructions, a “hardware processor”, a “virtual scale” comprising a software representation of the physical scale, a “virtual kiosk”, and a “mobile device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 20 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11 and 20; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudd et al. (US 2014/0019338 A1).
As per independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, Rudd discloses a scale management system (See at least Fig.3; Para 0045-0047) comprising a processor coupled to memory (See at least Fig.4), the processor being configured to:
initiate a weighment workflow for cargo carried by a first vehicle, the cargo comprising one or more units (See at least C12L45-56, “According to an example embodiment, as shown in FIG. 1, to initiate weighment of a vehicle, such as a truck, a user would drive a vehicle onto a weigh scale 26. Once the truck is on the scale platform in a position to be weighed, the user may launch the CAT Scale module or application 211 installed on wireless device 2 at step S100 (FIG. 15). The application 211 may be launched by selecting an appropriate icon representing the application that is displayed on the display 322. The icon may be selected by any known method of selecting and launching a software application stored in a wireless device.”);
generate a virtual scale configured to obtain scale data from a physical scale, the physical scale comprising a scale designed to weigh individual cargo units (Para 0080, Vehicle is one unit) and the virtual scale comprising a software representation of the physical scale, wherein hardware specifications of the physical scale are defined via the virtual scale (See at least, Fig.14c; Para 0065);
generate a virtual kiosk corresponding to the virtual scale, the virtual kiosk being rendered on a mobile device, configured for use during weighments of the one or more units in the cargo on the physical scale, and configured to associate one or more functionalities and workflows with the scale management system, wherein the workflows are defined via user interface elements and stored in a database for execution by the virtual kiosk (See at least Para 0065-0070, Set-up Functionality);
define a geo-fence around the physical scale based on location data of the physical scale; verify that the mobile device is within the geo-fence to establish a connection between the mobile device and the physical scale (See at least Para 0060, “The GPS module 205 is configured to determine the location of the wireless device 2 and to provide the location information for use in various applications, including but not limited to providing a location of a weigh site 12 and/or scale 26.”; Para 0081, “Once launched, a representative GUI will be displayed on the display 322 of the device 2 and the process proceeds to step S102 where instructions for obtaining a GPS detected position of the wireless device are executed. A location number and/or location information of the weigh scale 26 on which the truck is currently located will be displayed if the software application 211 was able to obtain a positive GPS lock via the wireless device 2 using the GPS module 205 (see FIG. 16a). According to this feature, known GPS locating methods are employed to locate the wireless device and the acquired location information is input into appropriate fields on the display 322 of the wireless device 2. For example, as shown in FIG. 16a, a GPS lock was obtained for the wireless device 2 using known techniques and methods. The obtained GPS information is then correlated with GPS coordinates of sale locations stored in a memory of the wireless device and, if a match is found, the corresponding scale location is displayed on the wireless device. If the location displayed on the wireless device 2 matches the location of the scale the user can verify the location by activating the ACCEPT icon or button shown on the display 322 at step S104 (FIG. 15). Although the CAT Scale module 211 and the GPS module 205 have been described as separate modules, one of skill in the art would readily recognize that the CAT Scale module 211 is also contemplated to include a GPS module therein.”);
initiate, based on the connection, a weighment of the cargo by the physical scale (See at least Para 0083); and
generate a master weigh ticket from the virtual kiosk comprising weighment data for the cargo, the weighment data comprising first weighment data for the one or more units in the cargo (tare weight) and second weighment data for a total weighment of the cargo (gross weight) by the physical scale (See at least Para 0003, “While the maximum allowed weight varies, the common standard is 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Weight is usually calculated in two measurements: (1) axle weight, the amount of weight carried by each axle and (2) the gross weight, the combined weight of all the axles. To inspect the weight of a truck and its load, weigh stations are equipped with truck scales. There are a variety of scales employed from single axle scales to multi-axle sets. Various systems may be used in truck scales, including, for example, load-cell systems, a bending-plate system, and piezo-electric systems.”; Para 0090-0091, E-mailed or Printed Ticket).
As per Claims 2 and 12, Honig discloses wherein the physical scale comprises a platform or bucket scale (See at least Fig.2; Para 0042).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Rudd discloses wherein the processor is further configured to edit the virtual scale and the virtual kiosk based at least in part on a user selection of a physical scale (See at least Figs.14a-14e).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Rudd discloses wherein the processor is further configured to filter available scales based at least in part on a user selection of a physical scale (See at least Fig,15; Para 0060, Location based filter).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Rudd discloses wherein the processor is further configured to set a default scale based at least in part on a user selection of a default scale (See at least Fig,15; Para 0060; Para 0065, Set Account Settings).
As per Claim 7 (6), Rudd discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate the virtual scale and the virtual kiosk based at least in part on the set default scale (See at least Fig,15; Para 0060; Para 0065, Set Account Settings).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Rudd discloses wherein the total weighment data of the cargo comprises a total gross weight and a total net weight, the total net weight being calculated based at least on a total tare weight (See at least Para 0003-0004; Para 0043).
As per Claims 10 and 19, Rudd discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate a sub-weigh ticket from the virtual kiosk, the sub-weigh ticket comprising weighment data for a one unit of cargo by the physical scale (See at least Fig.14c).
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.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rudd et al. (US 2014/0019338 A1).
As per Claims 9 and 18, while Rudd does disclose providing the customer/ user with a weighment ticket (via interface, email or printed), and ticket may include various weighment related data (See at least Fig.17a-19e; Para 0090-0091); however, Rudd fails to expressly disclose wherein the master weigh ticket further comprises fields comprising an indication that the master weigh ticket is void, a void date, a void time, and information identifying a voiding user.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive data (printed matter) and are not functionally involved in the method steps recited in claim 18. Futhermore, these differences are only found in the non-functional data stored in the system. The specific data labels listed (an indication of a void, a void date, a void time, and the voiding user) are treated as informational content intended to communicate a status or record to a human reader. Thus, this descriptive data will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2111.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to store/ present any data in the fields of the system/method as shown in Rudd because such data does not functionally relate to the substrate of the system/ method, and merely labeling the master weigh ticket data differently from that in the prior art would have been obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Allowable Subject Matter
After further consideration, the determination that claims 9 and 18 were allowable subject matter over the sited prior art is withdrawn. See the rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/2/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20, have been considered, but are not persuasive. See rejection above and answer to arguments below. The rejection remains as Non-Final.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/2/2026 and 8/14/2026, with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20, have been considered, but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection above.
The Applicant has made the argument that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.8
However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b).
The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mathematical concepts, and/or Mental processes as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve a managing information/ organizing data for a business transaction, and steps that a person can perform in his mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See In re BRCA1 & BCR A 2 — Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 11A F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that comparing information and making determinations based on the comparisons is an “abstract mental process.”). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of a Mental process, Mathematical concepts, and/or Certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) (Improvements provided by Applicant in arguments are not supported as a solution to a problem specifically indicated in the specification.)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Finally, the examination proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 18, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
