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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed2/26/2026. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19 and 21 were amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 16, 18 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19-22 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 2/26/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19-22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant submits that the subject matter of Applicant's amended independent claims is different from the patent-ineligible examples provided by the MPEP and by the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidelines. The patent-ineligible examples of managing interactions between people provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) include the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation" and the abstract idea of "providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information." The patent-ineligible examples of managing interactions between people provided in the USPTO's subject matter eligibility guidelines include Example 6 ("abstract idea of managing a game of Bingo") and Example 42-claim 2 ("a method that allows for users to access and update patients' medical records and stored the updated information"). In contrast to such patent-ineligible examples, Applicant's amended independent claims recite features directed to scannable QR codes that are configured in a particular way - "wherein each scannable QR code encodes a respective uniform resource locator (URL) comprising an identity of the respective scannable QR code but not comprising an identity of the respective trailer, and wherein each scannable QR code is configured to, when scanned by a mobile device, enable the mobile device to communicate with the central system regarding servicing for the respective trailer by accessing the respective URL, each communication comprising the identity of the respective scannable QR code but not an identity of the respective trailer," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Additionally, in response to a central system receiving a communication from a mobile device resulting from scanning such a scannable code, the central system "access[es], in the electronic storage, based only on the identity of the scannable QR code in the respective URL, respective HTML code corresponding to servicing information relating to a corresponding trailer, of the plurality of trailers, that corresponds to the respective identity of the scannable QR code contained in the respective URL," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Such features show that Applicant's amended independent claims do not recite any abstract idea of managing interactions between people. Accordingly, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims, are patent eligible under Prong One of Step 2A…. For example, Applicant's independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite "a plurality of scannable QR codes corresponding to the plurality of trailers, each scannable QR code of the plurality of scannable QR codes located on or in a respective trailer of the plurality of trailer, wherein each scannable QR code encodes a respective uniform resource locator (URL) comprising an identity of the respective scannable QR code but not comprising an identity of the respective trailer." Such a scannable QR code, configured in the recited manner, is a "manufacture that is integral to the claim" and is an indication of patent-eligibility. Also, by configuring scannable QR codes in such manner and by the central system accessing HTML code corresponding to servicing information for a corresponding trailer based only on the identity of the scannable QR code in the respective communication, the claimed technology maintains flexibility and customizability in how scannable QR codes are deployed to trailers, while still enabling the central system to properly identify which trailers have servicing needs. Accordingly, the claimed features improve the technical field of utilizing scannable codes to identify assets, which is an indication of patent- eligibility. Applicant submits that the indicators of a manufacture that is integral to the claim and of improvement in a technical field are indicative of integrating an abstract idea (if any) into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims, are patent-eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A.”, (see remarks, pg. 9-12).
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 trailer servicing system to facilitate service for trailer fleet, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as individuals with database stores records for trailers and identifies a trailer to be serviced, then communicates to proper personnel to service the required trailer. The computing elements such as “central system, electronic storage, processor, memory, QR codes, mobile device, URL, HTML code of claim 1; processor-implemented method, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code of claim 8; processor-readable medium, processor, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code 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. 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/amendments filed 2/26/2026 are persuasive, 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, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19-22 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 trailer servicing of a trailer fleet.
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 “configured to store servicing information relating a plurality of trailers; corresponding to the plurality of trailers, each located on or in a respective trailer of the plurality of trailer, wherein each encodes an identity but not comprising an identity of the respective trailer, and configured to, when scanned, enable to communicate regarding servicing for the respective trailer, each communication comprising the identity of the respective but not an identity of the respective trailer, wherein the instructions, perform: receiving a plurality of communications, resulting from scanning, the plurality of communications comprising communications accessing at least some of the respective; for each of the plurality of communications: accessing, based only on the identity of the [...] in the respective communication, servicing information relating to a corresponding trailer, of the plurality of trailers, that corresponds to the respective identity of the [...] encoded in the [...] that was scanned; and transmitting, at least a portion of the servicing information relating to the corresponding trailer” 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 (central system, electronic storage, processor, memory, QR codes, mobile device, URL, HTML code of claim 1; processor-implemented method, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code of claim 8; processor-readable medium, processor, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code 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, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19-22 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 (central system, electronic storage, processor, memory, QR codes, mobile device, URL, HTML code of claim 1; processor-implemented method, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code of claim 8; processor-readable medium, processor, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code of claim 15). The central system, electronic storage, processor, memory, QR codes, mobile device, URL, HTML code of claim 1; processor-implemented method, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code of claim 8; processor-readable medium, processor, central system, mobile device, QR codes, URL, HTML code 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 3, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 17 and 19-22 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the central system in claim 7; processor in claim 7; mobile device of claim 7, 14 and 20; processor-implemented method in claims 10, 13-14; processor-readable medium in claims 17; HTML code in claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20; user interface in claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20; HTML code, URL, code in claim 21; processor, central system, web page of claim 22, 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, 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