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 filed2/23/2026. Claims 1-3, 9 and 17 were amended. Claims 6-10 are new. Claims 1-10 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 2/23/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's analysis on both Steps 2A and 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, and further has amended claims 1-3, in response to the Examiner's analysis of these prongs, which Applicant submits takes the pending claims far outside of the judicial exception. In particular, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant disagrees that the claim set, as previously or currently presented, is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3), the "method of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas under § 101 is "limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances." MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)(II) (emphasis added). The Examiner has not identified any rare circumstance that would justify expansion of this grouping of abstract ideas to cover the claimed system... the invention is directed to a method which has at least one tangible output in the form of, for example, physical gates which open and close to allow traffic to pass, or prevent it from passing, and in another example, lights with specific displays and/or patterns which direct diverse types of shipping traffic to different areas within a shipping yard. Those physical features are an integral part of the claim set, as amended herein, and cannot be dissected from the claims at large. "The 'directed to' inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "Examiners should accordingly be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." MPEP §2106.04(I)(A)(1). Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended herewith, merely involve an exception, as opposed to recite an exception, in addition to the tangible outputs of the claimed system, and that therefore the claims as amended herein should be deemed eligible without further analysis. Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements added to claim 1 in particular, by amendment filed herewith, further direct the claims to a non-general-purpose, but specifically designed, tangible product such that the claims are clearly not "directed to" a recitation of instructions. Specifically, the claims as amended further require an image capture device, and at least one physical traffic direction system, the combination of which have specific, physical characteristics which make it custom fit for a specific application: directing traffic in a vehicular checkpoint. In consideration of these claim amendments and for all of the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection. Applicant further disagrees with the Examiner's application of Step 2A, Prong 2. As noted, this step of the Alice/Mayo test requires the Examiner to consider whether any identified judicial exception is "integrated into a practical application." The practical application of the elements recited in claim 1 is the improvement to tracking and sorting shipping vehicles, including the tangible result of physically (visually or by movement of physical barriers) sorting traffic into system-output-specific locations within a shipping checkpoint. Applicant submits that the amendments submitted herewith clarify these tangible elements of the claimed invention. For all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101”, (see remarks , pg. 8-10).
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 improving shipment for hazardous materials, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as an individual with database can review data for transportation bottlenecks to reduce physical and logistical transportation. The computing elements such as “hub, database, input means, image capture device, output device, traffic direction system, software, pass/fail signal of claim 1; signal and output device of claim 3” 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.
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, 3-5 and 8-10 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 improving shipment of hazardous materials.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 3-4 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “system for reducing physical and logistical transportation bottlenecks in the shipment of hazardous materials, the system comprising: a placard compliance verification; at least one regulatory operatively connected to said placard compliance verification; operatively connected to said placard compliance verification; operatively connected to said placard compliance verification; operatively connected to said placard compliance verification; and at least one physical operatively connected to said placard compliance verification, whereby said at least one physical is equipped for receiving control from said placard compliance verification; wherein said placard compliance verification is capable of receiving inputs from said at least one regulatory, and generating an output comprising a "pass/fail" pertaining to a compliance status of a shipping vehicle with one or more regulations regarding the placement of placards on said vehicle” 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 (hub, database, input means, image capture device, output device, traffic direction system, software, pass/fail signal of claim 1; signal and output device of claim 3) 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, 3-5 and 8-10 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 (hub, database, input means, image capture device, output device, traffic direction system, software, pass/fail signal of claim 1; signal and output device of claim 3). The hub, database, input means, image capture device, output device, traffic direction system, software, pass/fail signal of claim 1; signal and output device of claim 3, 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 and 5-10 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the automated electronic entry or exit gate in claim 2; hub in claim 2; signal and output device in claim 5, 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.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ivens et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220084186 - hereinafter Ivens).
Re. claim 4, Ivens discloses:
A method for reducing physical and logistical transportation bottlenecks in the shipment of hazardous materials, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data including shipping details for a shipment of hazards materials; [Ivens; ¶15].
generating a second data set including identification of one or more hazardous material placards required for compliance of said shipment with one or more hazardous materials regulations, said one or more hazardous material placards collectively comprising a placard arrangement. [Ivens; ¶15]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivens in view of Bryant et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200253193 - hereinafter Bryant).
Re. claim 3, Ivens teaches:
A method for reducing physical and logistical transportation bottlenecks in the shipment of hazardous materials, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of data including shipping details for a shipment of hazards materials; [Ivens; ¶15].
receiving a second set of data including identification of one or more hazardous material placards corresponding to said shipment, said one or more hazardous material placards collectively comprising a placard arrangement; [Ivens; ¶15].
determining a compliance status of said placard arrangement with regulations related to said shipment; and [Ivens; ¶73].
Ivens doesn’t teach, Bryant teaches:
sending a pass/fail signal related to said compliance status to an output device. [Bryant; ¶114 and ¶130].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bryant in the system of Ivens, 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.
Re. claim 5, Ivens teaches method of claim 4.
Ivens doesn’t teach, Bryan tteaches:
sending a control signal related to said placard arrangement to an output device. [Bryant; ¶114 and ¶130].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bryant in the system of Ivens, 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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that Independent claim 1 has 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