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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 18/585,032.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 1-20 (as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,634,547; over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,287,304; over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,448,546; and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,339,156), is withdrawn due to Applicant’s approved Terminal Disclaimer received 2/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The rejection of Claims 8-9 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment received 2/2/2026.
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 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.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended to recite, “for associating one or more functionalities and customizable workflows with the scale management system”; however, the phrase "for associating" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the Examiner is unclear how the one or more functionalities and customizable workflows would be “associated” with the scale management system.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also rejected as being dependent from claims 1, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 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 1-10 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 11-19 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 1-20 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; [A business rule or method of organizing activities (a "workflow" is a generic pattern of activity)]
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, [Data modeling or simulation of a physical object. It represents an informational representation of data rather than a physical machine itself]
wherein hardware specifications of the physical scale are defined via the virtual scale; [A "concept" or a method of organizing information, often considered a "mental process" or "mathematical concept" (e.g., 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 [A computer-implemented, user-interface-based method for interacting with data (a "virtual" version of a known physical kiosk)]
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. [Data manipulation and formatting. The output (a digital document) is an intangible collection of information.]
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 2-10 and 12-19 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 1-20 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 2-10 and 12-19 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 1-20 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 2-10 and 12-19 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 Honig et al. (US 11,448,546).
As per independent Claims 1, 11, and 20, Honig discloses a scale management system comprising a processor coupled to memory, 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 C2L55-60, “ In another embodiment, the virtual kiosk may further comprise a receivable kiosk configured to receive a list of materials, prices associated with dumping the materials, and weight units for the materials and generate a price to be paid for dumping the materials.”; C5L39-41, “The virtual kiosk may also then determine a net weight (e.g., of a cargo load) based on a difference of the inbound and outbound weights”; C16L4-9, “A truck driver may pull onto a truck scale and tap a “connect to scale” button on an application executing a virtual kiosk on a mobile device to connect to a scale. For example, the truck driver or mobile device of the truck driver may specify a location to locate a nearest scale and initiate a workflow for weighing via a virtual kiosk.”);
generate a virtual scale configured to obtain scale data from a physical scale (C2L67-C3L2), the physical scale comprising a scale designed to weigh individual cargo units (C5 L21-41, tare weight) 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 (C9L11-17, “Virtual scale 304 may comprise a representation of a physical scale at truck scale system 102 that is defined with certain attributes. Attributes of virtual scale 304 may comprise hardware specifications of the scale including make and model number, scale type, weighing capability, behavior of the scale, a service set identifier (SSID), and a port number.”);
generate a virtual kiosk corresponding to the virtual scale, the virtual kiosk being configured for use during weighments of the one or more units in the cargo on the physical scale (See at least Pg.32, TAC Insight mobile application) and for associating one or more functionalities and customizable workflows with the scale management system1(Intended use element – Not required of prior art. See Below. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to positively claim the integration of additional functionalities and customizable workflows with the scale management system) (See at least C5 L21-41, “The present application discloses a truck scale management system that provides web-accessible kiosk interfaces to truck scales. The truck scale management system may include a platform for creating and editing virtual kiosks that associate functionalities and workflow with truck scales. A virtual kiosk may comprise software associated with a scale for logistics, weighing method (e.g., tare then gross weight (“TG”), gross then tare weight (“GT”), tare weight only (“TO”), or gross weight only (“GO”), re-weighment), payments, and billing that can be customized to meet the need of a specific customer by defining entries in specific tables in a database. The virtual kiosk may also be configured for inbound/outbound weighing such that a driver user can specify whether a truck is inbound or outbound or be determined based on inbound and outbound weights. For example, the virtual kiosk may determine a tare weight and a gross weight from truck weighings. Specifically, the lower of the two weights may be determined as the tare weight and the higher may be the gross weight. The virtual kiosk may also then determine a net weight (e.g., of a cargo load) based on a difference of the inbound and outbound weights.”); 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 Figs. 45-46; C12L17-22, “After payment is processed, ticket(s) are generated (418) and may be stored in a database. Ticket(s) 420 may comprise a digital ticket that is generated based on data from the scale and any information generated from virtual kiosk 406. Data on ticket(s) 420 may be displayed via the virtual. Invoices can be generated (422) when ticket(s) 420 are created.”; C18 L25-49, “As shown in FIG. 40, the driver may specify that the current weighment session comprises an inbound weighing. The virtual tablet kiosk generates an overview (FIG. 41) of the inbound weighing including weight information (e.g., gross, tare, net, inbound, and outbound), weighment date, and weighment time. The virtual tablet kiosk also confirms success of the inbound weighing and displays a weighing summary (FIG. 42). The workflow illustrated in FIGS. 35 through 37 may be repeated for outbound weighing. FIG. 43 presents an interface for initiating the outbound weighment. The driver may then proceed to confirm that the current weighment session comprises an outbound weighing (FIG. 44). The virtual tablet kiosk generates an overview (FIG. 45) of the outbound weighing including weight information (e.g., gross, tare, net, inbound, and outbound), weighment date, and weighment time. The virtual tablet kiosk may determine a gross weight from the heavier of the inbound and outbound weights. Conversely, the virtual tablet kiosk may determine a tare weight from the lighter of the inbound and outbound weights. The virtual tablet kiosk may also then determine a net weight (e.g., of a cargo load) based on a difference of the inbound and outbound weights. The virtual tablet kiosk also confirms success of the outbound weighing and displays a weighing summary (FIG. 46)”).
1Please note:
“for associating one or more functionalities and customizable workflows with the scale management system”
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“For”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “a connector member for engaging shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.”
As per Claims 2 and 12, Honig discloses wherein the physical scale comprises a platform or bucket scale (See at least Fig.6, Weighmaster; Fig.36).
As per Claims 3 and 13, Honig discloses wherein the virtual kiosk is configured for access by a user on a mobile device (See at least C5L66-C6L3, “The system's device and location independence enables users to access a kiosk and scale using a web application or browser regardless of their location or what device they use (e.g., PC, mobile device).”).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Honig 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 Fig.33, C10L27-29; C11L40-48).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Honig 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.33, C10L27-29; C11L40-48).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Honig 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.33, C10L27-29; C11L40-48).
As per Claim 7 (6), Honig 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.33, C10L27-29; C11L40-48).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Honig 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 C5 L21-41; and C18 L25-49).
As per Claims 10 and 19, Honig 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 unit of cargo by the physical scale (See at least C5 L21-41; and C18 L25-49).
Allowable Subject Matter
As per Claims 9 and 18, while Honig does disclose that “A ticket may include information, such as scale name, location code, weight, payment method, and weighment cost.” (C15L41-43), “A starting ticket value may be configured for generating custom ticket numbering sequences.” (C10L37-39), that “Ticket(s) 420 may comprise a digital ticket that is generated based on data from the scale and any information generated from virtual kiosk 406.” (C15L41-43), and that the ticket can comprise a date and time field (Figs.41 and 45 (Inbound/ Outbound); Honig 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.
Therefore, Claims 9 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the sited prior art if the specified portion of the claim is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/2/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of Claims 1-20, have been considered, but are not persuasive. See rejection above and answer to arguments below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/2/2026, with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-20, have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
The Applicant has made the argument that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.8
The Applicant argues that the “features are not generic computer components performing generic steps; they are specifically tailored to improve how a scale system operates, communicates, and produces weighment records. The virtual scale and virtual kiosk work together to provide a technical solution to a technical problem – namely, replacing hardware-based scale interfaces with a flexible, configurable, software-based environment that enables mobile ticket creation, real-time scale interaction, and workflow automation that previously required physical hardware terminals. The claimed architecture improves the operation of the underlying technology itself by enabling scale functionality to be performed remotely, wirelessly, and without dependence on proprietary physical kiosks. This is a concrete improvement to computer functionality and industrial hardware interaction, not an abstract idea.”
However, Applicant’s specification fails to describe how the "virtual scale" significantly improves the accuracy, efficiency, or speed of the physical weighing process. The claimed steps are merely performing conventional, generic computing functions (e.g., using a generic database, standard network communication, or a computer screen to show data).
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
To overcome the current 101 rejection above, the Examiner suggest that the Applicant argue how the "virtual scale" and "virtual kiosk" represent a novel, non-conventional, and technically superior way to manage data that results in a technical solution to a specific logistics problem, such as enabling real-time, automated, high-fidelity, in-transit weight verification. The specification must clearly describe the technological improvement to the computer or the physical system, not just the business result of having better data.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
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.
March 13, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629