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
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 03/13/2025. Claims 1, 16, & 20 were amended and claim 13 was cancelled in a reply filed 09/15/2025. Claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claim 1 – 12 & 14 – 20 are not rejected under the prior art, as the previously-indicated allowable subject matter of cancelled claim 13 has been incorporated into independent claims 1, 16, & 20. More specifically, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the step of “before generating the table, determining a median value of occupied pixels in each pixel-wide column of the cropped image,” in the context of the other claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 6 – 7, that the amended claims are not directed to "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," and that “Nothing in the claim language mentions a business transaction, a legal obligation, or a marketing step. The Office Action does not appear to provide any reason why the claims were rejected as being allegedly directed to this category of organizing human activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that “when performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence).” (See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III))
The office action mailed 03/13/2025, on pg. 3, stated that “the functions in the context of the claims encompass analyzing environmental conditions data for products in a supply chain. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.” Therefore, a rationale for why the claims recite a judicial exception which falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas was provided i.e., because analyzing environmental conditions data for products in a supply chain would be performed as part of a shipping transaction.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 7, that “The present claims describe a similar automation to extract a cropped image of a graph, generate a table including a set of digital data points, and outputting the table, which previously could not be automated or reliably or consistently generated,” similar to McRO.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the Examiner could not find a section in the instant Specification describing an improvement in technology. Moreover, the claim considered by the McRO court claimed a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303. The McRO court concluded that the claims did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the technology through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1309. The claims in McRO used “limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result” over “existing, manual 3-D animation techniques.” Id. at 1316 (emphasis added). Unlike the claims of McRO, the instant claims are not directed to rules for lip sync and facial expression animation or an improvement in computer technology. Instead, the present claims recite an abstract idea which, as identified in the 101 rejection, falls into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping – not a technological improvement. Examiner further submits that processing sensor information to determine whether a threshold was traversed is entirely unrelated to the fact pattern and subject matter of McRO. As evidenced by the instant specification (para. [0012]), the instant invention is directed to “giving insights via a remaining stability budget that captures or provides product shelf life across multiple legs or devices of an end-to-end shipment. Real-time or comprehensive summaries may be provided to enable suppliers, manufacturers, or customers to know whether a product is safe and effective.” Examiner respectfully submits that this alleged benefit amounts to an improvement to a commercial interaction rather than an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. Therefore, the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
The claims filed 09/15/2025 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 – 12 & 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 15 are directed to a process (i.e., a method). Claims 16 – 19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claim 20 is directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 – 12 & 14 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 16, & 20 generally recite: “receiving a flat format… document including a graph representing sensor data over a time period; automatically determining, from text of the flat format… document, an upper threshold, a lower threshold, and an expected number of data points of the graph; identifying a region of the flat format… document corresponding to the graph based on the upper threshold and the lower threshold; extracting a cropped image of the graph; generating, using the cropped image of the graph, the upper threshold, the lower threshold, and the expected number of data points, a table including a set of digital data points; before generating the table, determining a median value of occupied pixels in each pixel-wide column of the cropped image; and outputting the table for at least one of storage, display.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction, as well as while performing mathematical formulas, equations, and calculations. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass performing calculations to monitor environmental conditions data for products in a supply chain. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” In addition, the limitations directed to mathematical calculations i.e., determining an upper threshold, a lower threshold, and an expected number of data points of the graph, generating the upper threshold, the lower threshold, and the expected number of data points, a table including a set of digital data points, and determining a median value of occupied pixels in each pixel-wide column of the cropped image fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas which fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 16, & 20, as a whole, amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claims 1 recites the additional computer-related element of “further machine processing,” as well as the additional element of “electronic.” Claim 16 recites the additional computer-related element of “processing circuitry,” “memory, including instructions,” and “further machine processing,” as well as the additional element of “electronic.” Claim 20 recites the additional computer-related element of “non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions,” “processing circuitry,” and “further machine processing,” as well as the additional element of “electronic.”
The additional element of “further machine processing” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of “processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “memory, including instructions” and “non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions,” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional element of “electronic,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., field) of electronic documents (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 16, & 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “further machine processing,” “processing circuitry,” “memory, including instructions,” “non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions,” and “electronic” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 12, 14 – 15 & 17 – 19 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628