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 filed4/22/2026. Claims 31, 33, 38, 47, 49, 54, 56, 61 were amended. Claims 1-30, 32, 34-36, 39, 43-45, 48, 50-52, 55, 57-59 and 62 were cancelled. Claims 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2026 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. § 112(a): Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/22/2026, with respect to claims 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/22/2026, with respect to claims 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “this Amendment amends claims 31, 33, 38, 47, 49, 54, 56, and 61 to clarify the features of the invention. Claims 31, 33, 37, 38, 40-42, 46, 47, 49, 53, 54, 56, 60, and 61, as amended, are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims are respectfully requested”, (see remarks, pg. 1).
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 providing container visibility, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as well as Mathematical concepts in form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formals or equations and mathematical calculations and Mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind which include observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, as the models in the claims can be formed through the method of mathematical calculations to conclude with an estimate of container visibility in the yard. The computing elements such as “control system, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 31; algorithms, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 47; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 54; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 61” 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 4/22/2026 with respect to claims 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 have been fully considered and are persuasive, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 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 identifying and tracking shipping containers.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 31, 47, 54 and 61 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “identifying and tracking shipping containers, comprising: generate data of one or more shipping containers, configured to generate container image data of the one or more shipping containers; generating with the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data; and identifying each shipping container of the one or more shipping containers based upon the container image data” 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 (control system, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 31; algorithms, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 47; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 54; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 61) 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 31, 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46-47, 49, 53-54, 56 and 60-61 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 (control system, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 31; algorithms, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 47; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 54; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 61). The control system, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 31; algorithms, camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 47; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 54; camera, image data, server, processor, computer-readable storage medium, recognition engine, machine learning model, neural network, OCR, classification engine, matching engine in claim 61, 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 33, 37-38, 40-42, 46, 49, 53, 56 and 60 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the image sensors in claims 46; server in claims 41-42, 49, 53; OCR in claims 33, 49 and 56; data fusion operation in claim 41; user interface in claim 41-42, 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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 3626
Prosecution Insights