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 filed10/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant submits that claim 1 does not recite any element that relates to an interaction between people. The elements of claim 1 recite steps that plainly do not require human activity… Claim 1 recites a controller configured to execute a series of steps to determine a location and direction of travel of an object transport vehicle based on signals received from a plurality of wireless devices. There is no human activity recited in claim 1, and the Office has facially failed to explain otherwise… The Office has failed to properly apply the "as a whole" claim analysis as required by the MPEP For example, the Office points to a number of components to argue that these do not amount to additional elements, but the Office fails to indicate whether "the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception," as required by the MPEP. See MPEP § 2106.04 (II)(A)(2) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully disagrees and requests that this rejection be withdrawn… As noted in the MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I), "an improvement to other technology or technical field" amounts to the requisite practice application. "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art." MPEP §2106.05(a). Applicant respectfully submits that the claims describe the improvements in a specific manner… The "significantly more" inquiry has been described as "a search for an 'inventive concept." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (quoting Mayo, Inc., 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Put differently, the "significantly more" inquiry "look[s] more precisely at what the claim elements add," whether the claims include "meaningful limitations," and whether the claim "is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize" the abstract idea. Electric Power Group, 119 USPQ2d at 1741; Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11); Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The pending claims, when considered as a whole, recite a method including an unconventional and distinct ordered combination of specific steps that provides a technological solution. This combination of steps operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to provide a specific technical solution to the problem of "determin[ing] a precise location of a given object transport vehicle at a specific point in time." See Applicant's specification, paragraph 0006. The Office has not provided any evidence beyond the blanket statement that "the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use." Office Action, page 5. Therefore, Applicant submits that the additional elements of claim 1 apply the alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way described above beyond generally linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment. While of different scope, claims 15 and 19 recite similar elements as claim 1 and are therefore also subject matter eligible for the same reasons as claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the Office has failed to establish a primafacie case for both Steps 2A and 2B, and respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”, (see remarks , pg. 10-14).
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 tracking delivery of an object, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as an individual utilizing a database and computing elements can perform calculations to determine front center point, rear center point along with location and direction of travel of the vehicle. The computing elements such as “vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 1; vehicle, signals, wireless devices of claim 15; vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 19” 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. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 10/22/2025 are persuasive, and the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
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 tracking delivery of an object.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 15 and 19 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “object transport, comprising: a first plurality affixed to a front portion of the object transport; a second plurality affixed to a rear portion of the object transport; configured to: calculate a front center point of the object transport based on first received from each of the first plurality; calculate a rear center point of the object transport based on second received from each of the second plurality; determine a location and direction of travel of the object transport based on the front center point and the rear center point; and determine the location and direction of travel of the object transport based only on the rear center point, on a condition that: the first from the first plurality of are not received; and prerequisites are met” 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 (vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 1; vehicle, signals, wireless devices of claim 15; vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 19) 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 (vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 1; vehicle, signals, wireless devices of claim 15; vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 19). The vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 1; vehicle, signals, wireless devices of claim 15; vehicle, tracking system, wireless devices, controller, signals of claim 19, 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 2-4, 16-18 and 20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the vehicle in claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20; tracking system in claims 2-14 and 20; wireless devices in claims 6-7, 9-12; controller in claims 6-8 and 13-14; signals of claim 6-7, 11-14; counter in claim 8; position sensor in claims 11-12, 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
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.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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