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
Due to communications filed 11/11/25, the following is a final office action. Claims 5, 7 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-11, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-16 and 18-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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 1-4, 6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-4, 6, 8-16 and 18-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite "Mental
Processes". The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and
communication of electronic shipping records, which are concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of the "Mental Processes"
grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating shipment information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components
are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing shipment
records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating information related to shipment records in a computer environment. Thus, even when
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the
abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections
set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention
and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIM (KR 20230150043 A), and further in view of Van Meeteren (US 20210350713 A1).
As per claim 1, LIM discloses:
obtain at least one of driver data or vehicle data, (Various information (personal information of
the driver, driver's license information of the driver, information on the registered means of
transportation, information on the waiting position of the registered means of transportation is stored
in the first electronic device 110. ) or may be entered or modified through the administrator of the
server 150);
obtain location data, (In other embodiments, electronic devices, external devices, and wearable devices include...sensors;
determine that a vehicle is at a first pickup location, (The server 150 can receive current location
information and waiting location information of the transportation vehicle in real time from the first
electronic device 110. The current location information of the means of transportation refers to the GPS
device included in the first electronic device 110 or the first electronic device (110) refers to the
location information of the companion animal transportation vehicle that is tracked from the GPS device
of the transportation vehicle connected to the vehicle);
obtain animal data related to the first pickup location, (Various information related to the
second electronic device 130 (user's personal information, information on transportation use history,
information on the type and body size of the pet, information on precautions for the pet, information on
frequently used pick-up locations), frequently used destination information, etc.) may be entered
through the second electronic device 130 or may be entered or modified through the administrator of
the server 150);
determine that the vehicle is at a first drop off location in real time, (The server 150 can receive current
location information and waiting location information of the transportation vehicle in real time from the
first electronic device 110. The current location information of the means of transportation refers to the
GPS device included in the first electronic device 110 or the first electronic device (110) refers to the
location information of the companion animal transportation vehicle that is tracked from the GPS device
of the transportation vehicle connected to the vehicle);
obtain first additional animal data related to the first drop off location, (In addition, the database
240 contains various information regarding the operation of the transportation vehicle generated
according to the individual transportation operation request (...pet boarding and it can include disembarkation information, real-time video while the pet is boarding, etc.) can be stored);
dynamically adjust the animal data in real time to form adjusted animal data based on the first additional animal data obtained; and record in a memory of an electronic device the adjusted animal data, (real-time video while the pet is boarding, etc.) can be stored; The database 240 may be implemented on the memory 250 or in a separate storage medium. The database 240 can store all the contents and details of data transmitted and received with the first electronic device 110, the second electronic device 130, and the public data provision server 170. Data stored in the database 240 may be constantly updated according to a predetermined period, and may be updated at any time when new data is input through the first electronic device 110 or the second electronic device 130).
LIM does not disclose the following limitations, however, Van Meeteren discloses:
obtain location data from a sensor of a vehicle/continuously monitor a location of the vehicle in response to determining the vehicle is at the first pickup location; determine a second pickup location based on continuously monitoring the location of the vehicle, (Van Meeteren: [0059], In some embodiments, the navigating may comprise the autonomous vehicle moving from the first location to a second or new location, at 410. The executed navigational routine may, for example, utilize the first data and/or the map/model to identify and/or project a desired second location for the autonomous vehicle, such as a point near at least one edge or extent of the captured first data...According to some embodiments, the second/new location may be achieved by comparing live feed from the sensor/camera of the autonomous vehicle to one or more sample images and/or boundary data items to identify when the extents of a desired second/new location fit within a field of view of the camera/sensor. The autonomous vehicle may continuously monitor the sensor/camera feed as it navigates, for example, and upon an identification of the extents of the second/new location existing within the field of view, may stop and/or may otherwise hold position (e.g., the second/new location with respect to the target location); [real-time is represented by the continuous monitoring of the camera feed].
As per claim 2, LIM discloses:
further comprising executable code to:
communicate the adjusted animal data to a remote electronic device in response to a request
by the remote electronic device for the adjusted animal data, (The server 150 according to an
embodiment of the present invention may be implemented as a computer device or a plurality of
computer devices that provide commands, code files).
As per claim 6, LIM discloses:
wherein to determine that the vehicle is at the first pickup, the executable code to obtain
location data from a manual input of a driver, (According to step S301, the first electronic device 110
may provide the server 150 with current location information and waiting location information of the
vehicle. The current location information of the vehicle may include location information of the vehicle
tracked from the GPS device included in the first electronic device 110 or the GPS device of the vehicle
connected to the first electronic device 110. The waiting position information of the means of
transportation may include information about the basic waiting position of the means of transportation
connected to the first electronic device 110, and may be input in advance by the driver through the first
electronic device 110 and stored in the database 240).
As per claim 9, LIM discloses:
wherein in response to determining the second pickup location, the executable code to obtain second
additional animal data, (In addition, the database 240 contains various information regarding the
operation of the transportation vehicle generated according to the individual transportation operation
request (...pet boarding and disembarkation information, real-time video while the pet is boarding, etc.)
can be stored); and
dynamically adjust the animal data based on the second additional animal data, (The database 240 may
be implemented on the memory 250 or in a separate storage medium. The database 240 can store all
the contents and details of data transmitted and received with the first electronic device 110, the
second electronic device 130, and the public data provision server 170. Data stored in the database 240
may be constantly updated according to a predetermined period, and may be updated at any time when
new data is input through the first electronic device 110 or the second electronic device 130).
In addition, although LIM doesn’t specifically disclose second additional animal data and dynamically adjust the animal data based on the second additional animal data, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to repeat the steps of the invention at a subsequent time, since the combination with Van Meeteren teaches dynamically updating of data, and also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 13, this claim discloses limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1
and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 16, LIM discloses:
the one or more processors further configured to: continuously monitor a location of the vehicle
in response to determining the first pickup location; and determine a second pickup location based on
monitoring the location of the vehicle, (The server 150 can receive current location information and
waiting location information of the transportation vehicle in real time from the first electronic device
110. The current location information of the means of transportation refers to the GPS device included
in the first electronic device 110 or the first electronic device (110) refers to the location information of
the companion animal transportation vehicle that is tracked from the GPS device of the transportation
vehicle connected to the vehicle).
As per claim 18, LIM discloses: wherein in response to determining the second pickup location,
the one or more processors further configured to: obtain additional animal data, (In addition, the
database 240 contains various information regarding the operation of the transportation vehicle
generated according to the individual transportation operation request (...pet boarding and
disembarkation information, real-time video while the pet is boarding, etc.) can be stored); and;
dynamically adjust the animal data based on the additional animal data, (The database 240 may
be implemented on the memory 250 or in a separate storage medium. The database 240 can store all
the contents and details of data transmitted and received with the first electronic device 110, the
second electronic device 130, and the public data provision server 170. Data stored in the database 240
may be constantly updated according to a predetermined period, and may be updated at any time when
new data is input through the first electronic device 110 or the second electronic device 130).
As per claim 19, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1
and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 20, LIM discloses:
continuously monitor a location of the vehicle in response to determining the first pickup
location; and determine a second pickup location based on monitoring the location of the vehicle, (The
server 150 can receive current location information and waiting location information of the
transportation vehicle in real time from the first electronic device 110. The current location information
of the means of transportation refers to the GPS device included in the first electronic device 110 or the
first electronic device ( 110) refers to the location information of the companion animal transportation
vehicle that is tracked from the GPS device of the transportation vehicle connected to the vehicle).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (KR 20230150043 A), and further in view of Van Meeteren (US 20210350713 A1), and further in view of GARCIA-BROSA (WO 2023244960 A1).
As per claim 3, LIM does not disclose the following, however, GARCIA-BROSA discloses:
wherein to obtain the at least one of the driver data or the vehicle data, the executable code to
communicate a prompt on an input screen for the driver data or the vehicle data,
(GARCIA-BROSA (WO 2023244960 A1): ([0122] Upon choosing that the user does have an account, the
platform may direct a user to a user login module706 (alternatively: screen, display, and/or page). The
user login module may comprise a plurality of identification criteria. The plurality of identification
criteria may comprise at least one of the plurality of user input requests. The plurality of identification
criteria may be used to prompt the user to enter at least one input to securely log in; [0123] The
plurality of user input requests may be used for creating a user profile; [0217] FIG.28 is a flowchart of a
method 2000, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure at least a portion of the plurality
of tasks may be combined with and/or associated with transporting people, animals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by GARCIA-BROSA in the systems of LIM, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, LIM does not disclose the following, however, GARCIA-BROSA discloses:
wherein to obtain the at least one of the driver data or the vehicle data, the executable code to
automatically load a profile of a driver of a vehicle, ([0117] Furthermore, in some embodiments, a
delivery driver profile may be provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by GARCIA-BROSA in the systems of LIM, since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIM (KR 20230150043 A), and further in view of BALVA (WO 2019203788 A1).
As per claim 8, LIM does not disclose the following, however BALVA discloses:
wherein to determine the second pickup location comprises utilizing an artificial intelligence
application, (BALVA (WO 2019203788 A1): [0020] Approaches described and suggested herein relate to
the evaluating of potential routing solutions requests based on environmental metric of the potential
routing solutions. The potential routing solution can be in a response to a trip request. The trip request
can relate to the transportation of people, animals; [0028] In some embodiments an artificial
intelligence-based approach, as may include machine learning or a trained neural network, for example,
can be used to further optimize the function based upon various trends and relationships determined
from the data as discussed elsewhere herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by BALVA in the systems of LIM, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, LIM does not disclose the following, however BALVA discloses: further
comprising executable code to determine no animals remain in the vehicle after determining the vehicle
is at the first pickup location; and obtain cleaning data related to the vehicle in response to determining
that no animals remain in the vehicle, ([0037] Similarly, the metric can take into account the time
needed to finish the ride, such as to drive to a parking location and park the vehicle, clean and check the
vehicle, etc. The efficiency can also potentially take into account other maintenance related factors for
the vehicle, such as a daily or weekly washing, interior cleaning, maintenance checks, and the like).
As per claim 11, LIM does not disclose the following, however BALVA discloses: wherein to
obtain the cleaning data the executable code to prompt a driver to enter wash data related to the
vehicle, ([0037] Similarly, the metric can take into account the time needed to finish the ride, such as to
drive to a parking location and park the vehicle, clean and check the vehicle, etc. The efficiency can also
potentially take into account other maintenance related factors for the vehicle, such as a daily or weekly
washing, interior cleaning, maintenance checks, and the like).
As per claim 12, LIM discloses:
further comprising executable code to record the wash data in the memory, (In some
embodiments, the electronic device or external device may be a home appliance. Home appliances
include, for example, televisions, DVD players (Digital Video Disk players), stereos, refrigerators, air
conditioners, vacuum cleaners, ovens, microwave ovens, washing machines, air purifiers).
As per claim 15, please see the rejection of claim 11.
As per claim 17, LIM does not disclose: wherein to determine the second pickup location
comprises utilizing an artificial intelligence application, (BALVA (WO 2019203788 A1): [0020]
Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the evaluating of potential routing solutions
requests based on environmental metric of the potential routing solutions. The potential routing
solution can be in a response to a trip request. The trip request can relate to the transportation of
people, animals; [0028] In some embodiments an artificial intelligence-based approach, as may include
machine learning or a trained neural network, for example, can be used to further optimize the function
based upon various trends and relationships determined from the data as discussed elsewhere herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include the above limitations as taught by BALVA in the systems of LIM, since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that he disagrees with Examiner’s statement that the claims recite “a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic shipping records, which are concepts performed in the human mind. Applicant further argues that the claims are solving the technological problem that in animal and livestock monitoring, currently there is not a way to track animal movement in real-time.
Applicant argues that a human is incapable of recording adjusted data within a memory in real time. However,
Applicant argues that the current technology is similar to that found eligible in the Enfish case. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are unlike the claims in Enfish, where the distinction was made between computer-functionality improvements and uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on "abstract ideas" That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement -a particular database technique-in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. However the present case is different. The focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Further, Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the
claims do not recite a result of a process, but a specific manner by which the process is
performed. In SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the recited manner does not reflect an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Although the claims recite a sequence of operations, the operations merely constitute data collection, analysis, and storage, which are abstract ideas. In addition, the claims show what data is processed and when, but not how the computer is technically improved. Examiner maintains her rejection.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely apply the abstract idea using a generic vehicle sensor and memory without improving the functioning of the computer, sensor or vehicle, or effecting a transformation of matter. The additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the present claims show an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field by presenting an improvement in animal monitoring technologies, and as a result, the claims integrate the exception into a practical idea under MPEP However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, but is merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant urges the Examiner to not oversimplify Applicant's claims and encourages the Examiner to instead follow the recently issued Deputy Commissioner for Patents Kim's Memorandum of Aug. 4, 2025 entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" (herein after "the Kim Memo"). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that she over generalizes the claimed invention as a “Mental Process” by not providing evidentiary support because she properly identifies the subject matter found in the claims. For example, in the rejection, Examiner lists each limitation of the claim (“obtaining”, “obtain”, “determine”, “obtain”, “continuously monitor”, “determine”, “determine...”, “obtain”, “dynamically adjust” etc.), and has identified all the limitations directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes". Examiner also has found the most relevant court decisions. She explains that the limitations are similar to abstract ideas found by the courts, because the claim limitations involve managing relationships or transactions between people and sales activities, which relates to “creating a contractual relationship”, which is similar to the BuySAFE court case decision, and also relates to “organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations”, which is similar to the Digitech court case decision. Examiner therefore concludes that she has not made an overgeneralization.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 11/11/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-16 and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Meeteren (US 20210350713 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 5, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights