.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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed12/9/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/9/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “First, the claims are not "directed to" mathematical concepts when the USPTO guidance is correctly applied. The Office's guidance clearly draws a line between claims that merely involve mathematical concepts and those that recite them. In the instant application, while the claims may recite determination steps, they also recite steps directed to training and using a machine learning model. They do not recite mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations as claim limitations. The mere presence of machine learning or probabilistic inference does not itself place a claim in the "mathematical concepts" grouping unless the claim sets forth the math. The Memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Patents on August 4, 2025 (herein after referred to as "the Memo"), corroborates this conclusion. At Page 3 the Memo discusses "example 39" and states that the feature "..."training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set" does not recite a judicial exception. Even though "training the neural network" involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols". That is precisely the case here. Thus, claim 1 does not recite a process that can be performed in the mind. Second, the assertion that the claims recite a mental process also fails when the USPTO subject matter eligibility test is correctly applied. According to the Memo, "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)" (the Memo, at Page 2). The instant claims recite the application of an ML model to compute and compare multiple failure-mode probabilities against thresholds as the asset physically moves and iterative model re-training based on the failure probabilities. While human interaction may be required to provide information to train or correct the ML model, training such a model is not an activity that can be performed in the mind… Third, Applicant disagrees with Examiner's assessment that the claims are recite a method of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) lays out the concepts related to defining a "method of organizing human activity", which involve fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing relationships/interactions between people. The MPEP is clear that this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3) (emphasis added). Those "rare circumstances" have not been established in the instant application. MPEP 2106.04(a)(3) requires that if an examiner believes a claim limitation should be treated as an abstract idea despite not falling within any of the enumerated sub- groupings (a "tentative abstract idea"), and the examiner believes that the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter, then the examiner must bring the application to the attention of the Technology Center director, who must approve the rejection and provide a justification for why the claim limitation is being treated as an abstract idea. This has not been done in the instant application, and the Examiner does not assert otherwise. Without establishing a "tentative abstract idea," the instant claims, which recite specific technical operations in a supply-chain tracking system: obtaining real-time sensor streams from IoT tracking devices (including GPS geolocation and measured wireless signal strength), computing probabilities of failure modes via a trained machine learning model, re-training the model based on updated probabilities, and then automatically causing real-world mitigations before the asset reaches its destination, simply do not recite activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 101 should be withdrawn for at least this reason… Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites indicating and performing a real-world action to be performed when a probability comparison indicates a specific result. The determination steps laid out in the rest of the claim are related to determining probabilities of failure and not to determining a real-world action to be taken. As such, the claims do more than merely collect data, make a determination, and present said determination. The Office's own examples reinforce this. In the livestock management example (USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Example 36), claim 1, which merely collected and displayed data was ineligible. On the other hand, claims 2 and 3 used sensor inputs to drive a control action (e.g., feeding or sorting) and were, therefore eligible as integrated into a practical application in the technical field. The present claims similarly go beyond passive monitoring to select and trigger concrete mitigations (e.g., real-world actions) tied to asset location and predicted failure mode, thereby improving the performance and reliability of an engineered supply-chain system. Moreover, the Examiner's assertion that the additional elements (recited processors, memory, computer-executable instructions, machine-learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signals, user interface, and user device) are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality ignores the plain language of the claims. The instant claims recite a particular machine which is created by the arrangement of IoT tracking devices with on-board GPS receivers and measured wireless interfaces coupled to a remote system and user device. Thus, any judicial exception present in the instant claims is implemented with, or used in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.”, (see remarks , pg. 12-19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for management of package delivery, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to determine location of an asset and determining various modes of failure threshold along with mitigations for each failure threshold encountered, additionally falls under mathematical concepts such a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the models can be laid out by pen and paper as a human can perform calculation to present a fitted model. The computing elements such as “processors, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 1; processor, memory, computer-executable instructions, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 8; processors, computer-executable instructions, computer readable medium, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 15” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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. With respect to utilizing machine learning model to vaguely present solution to “real-world” action to be taken, as discussed via telephone with Attorney Emily Yasharpour on January 21, 2026, it would be beneficial to describe the “real-world” actions taken as shown in Applicant’s Specification ¶21. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for management of package delivery.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “obtaining, at a first time historical asset tracking data for the plurality of assets as the plurality of assets progress through the supply chain network; training, and using the historical asset tracking data, usable to determine a probability of failure and a mode of failure associated with an asset of the plurality of assets; obtaining, at a second time collected from a first associated with a first asset of the plurality of assets, wherein the data is collected in real-time as the first asset progresses through the supply chain network, wherein the data comprises geolocation data obtained; obtaining, at a second time, second data collected, wherein the first is configured to be attached to a first asset, wherein the second data includes a first strength; determining, that the first asset is located at a first location within a facility; obtaining, third data collected, wherein the third data includes a second strength that is lower than the first strength; determining, strength being lower than the first strength, that the first asset is located at a second location within the facility or outside of the facility; presenting, the first asset is at the first location obtaining, data collected from the first, wherein the fourth data includes geolocation data; determining, a first probability of failure associated with a first mode of failure of the first asset and a second probability of failure associated with a second mode of failure of the first asset; re-training based on the first probability of failure and the second probability of failure; and responsive to a determination, that the first probability of failure exceeds a first failure threshold and the second probability of failure is less than the first failure threshold or a second failure threshold: determining, a first mitigation, a second mitigation, and a third mitigation for the first mode of failure; determining, a third probability of failure associated with the first mitigation, a fourth probability of failure associated with the second mitigation, and a fifth probability of failure associated with the third mitigation; determining, that the third probability of failure is less than the fourth probability of failure and the fifth probability of failure; and transmitting a notification to the user, the notification including an indication of one or more real-world actions to be performed prior to the first asset reaching a destination in the supply chain network, the one or more real-world actions associated with the first mitigation to be performed instead of the second mitigation or the third mitigation based on the determination that the third probability of failure is less than the fourth probability of failure and the fifth probability of failure; and causing the one or more real-world actions to be performed based on the geolocation data; presenting, based on the determination that the first asset has been delivered, with the indication of the first asset removed” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processors, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 1; processor, memory, computer-executable instructions, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 8; processors, computer-executable instructions, computer readable medium, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 15) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processors, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 1; processor, memory, computer-executable instructions, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 8; processors, computer-executable instructions, computer readable medium, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 15). The processors, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 1; processor, memory, computer-executable instructions, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 8; processors, computer-executable instructions, computer readable medium, machine learning model, sensor data, tracking device, GPS receiver, remote system, wireless signal, user interface, user device of claim 15, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even 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 ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the processors in claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17; machine learning model in claims 3, 10, 14 and 17; sensor data in claims 4-5, 7, 11-12 and 18-19; tracking device of claim 4, 7, 11 and 18; memory, computer-executable instructions in claims 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17 and 19; computer readable medium of claims 16-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628