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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 07/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 and 12/19/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method and claim 18 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 10 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 10 as discussed here. Claim 10 recites:
A method for detecting lost goods transported by a vehicle, comprising the steps of:
a distance travelled by the vehicle is divided into sections (X, Y, Z) which are seamlessly connected to each other at respective route transition points (A, B, C, D);
wherein at each route transition point (A, B, C, D) a control unit (SCX, SCY, SCZ) is activated which determines a vehicle weight (FGA, FGB) and separately a weight of operating materials (GBS) used by the vehicle;
wherein a difference (GVL) is formed from a vehicle weight (FGA) of a preceding route transition point (A, B, C, D), a vehicle weight (FGB) of a current route transition point (A, B, C, D), and the weight of the operating materials (GBS) used by the vehicle; and
wherein a loss of cargo is recognized and an associated section (X, Y, Z) is identified when the difference (GVL) is greater than a predetermined threshold (SW).
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for detecting lost goods transported by a vehicle, wherein the system is configured to perform the method according to claim 10
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 10 and 18 further recite “a method for detecting lost goods transported by a vehicle, comprising the steps of: a distance travelled by the vehicle is divided into sections” and “A system for detecting lost goods transported by a vehicle, wherein the system os configured to perform the method according to claim 10” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “is activated which determines a vehicle weight” in claim 10 and “wherein a loss of cargo is recognized and an associated section (X,Y,Z) is identified when the difference (GVL) is greater than a predetermined threshold (SW)” in claim 18 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously transported by the vehicle” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 11-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 11=17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 10.
Therefore, claim(s) 10-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al (U.S. 2022/003030) and further in view of Kyrtsos (U.S. 6,363,331).
5. As per claims 1,18 HAN disclosed a method for detecting lost goods transported by a vehicle, comprising the steps of:
a distance travelled by the vehicle is divided into sections (X, Y, Z) which are seamlessly connected to each other at respective route transition points (A, B, C, D) [The navigation unit may be any system configured to determine a driving path or route for the vehicle 105. The navigation unit may additionally be configured to update the driving path dynamically while the vehicle 105 is in operation. In some embodiments, the navigation unit may be configured to incorporate data from the GPS transceiver and one or more predetermined maps so as to determine the driving path for the vehicle 105] (Paragraph. 0024);
wherein at each route transition point (A, B, C, D) a control unit (SCX, SCY, SCZ) is activated which determines a vehicle weight (FGA, FGB) and separately a weight of operating materials (GBS) used by the vehicle [The location checking circuit 104 uses GPS information retrieved from the user device 130 to correlate the detected change in weight with geolocation data. Thus, if the comparing circuit 103 detects a change above the threshold weight difference allowed, location checking circuit 104 uses location based services of the user device 130 to determine the vehicles location and compares the location to a valid set of locations based on static file inputs (e.g., as stored in the database 140). Valid locations can include known fueling locations, dumping locations, a start or end of the delivery route to indicate unloading of cargo (passengers), etc. If there is no valid location associated with the location of the vehicle at the time of the weight change] (Paragraph. 0053);
wherein a difference (GVL) is formed from a vehicle weight (FGA) of a preceding route transition point (A, B, C, D), a vehicle weight (FGB) of a current route transition point (A, B, C, D), and the weight of the operating materials (GBS) used by the vehicle [a second current weight of the vehicle based on a spring-mass-damper mechanical algorithm using vehicle data received from a user device, comparing each of the first difference and the second difference to a predetermined weight difference threshold value, and checking if a location of the vehicle matches a location in a list of verified weight change locations of a database if the comparing detects at least one of the first difference and the second difference is greater than the predetermined weight difference threshold value] (Paragraph. 0007); and
However, HAN did not explicitly disclose wherein a loss of cargo is recognized and an associated section (X, Y, Z) is identified when the difference (GVL) is greater than a predetermined threshold (SW).
In the same field of endeavor Kyrtsos disclosed, “the control 26 compares the actual moving average difference 50 with the threshold moving average difference 36 in step 133. If the actual moving average difference 50 is greater than the threshold moving average difference 36, then a difference warning signal 32B is sent to the display indicating that the weight distribution on a vehicle may have experienced a shift in step 134 (col. 4, lines 24-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated the control 26 compares the actual moving average difference 50 with the threshold moving average difference 36 in step 133. If the actual moving average difference 50 is greater than the threshold moving average difference 36, then a difference warning signal 32B is sent to the display indicating that the weight distribution on a vehicle may have experienced a shift in step 134 as taught by Kyrtsos in the method and system of HAN increase the efficiency of the monitoring of delivering of the goods by the vehicle.
6. As per claim 11 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein a classification into the sections (X, Y, Z) is performed manually by a driver or a fleet manager or by a backend equipped with a logistics program or by a frontend (HAN, Paragraph. 0024).
7. As per claim 12 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein the backend or the frontend communicates with the control unit (SCX, SCY, SCZ) to determine the respective weights (FGA, FGB, GBS) (HAN, Paragraph. 0034).
8. As per claim 13 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein a classification into the sections (X, Y, Z) takes place depending on a topography, a route, and/or a current traffic situation (HAN. Paragraph. 0023).
9. As per claim 14 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein the respective vehicle weights (FGA, FGB) are determined in respective external stations or by a vehicle-specific measurement (HAN, Paragraph. 0022).
10. As per claim 15 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein the loss of cargo and the associated section (X, Y, Z) are reported to a higher-level control center (CC) and/or to a driver of the vehicle (HAN, Paragraph. 0040).
11. As per claim 16 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein measures for regulating traffic on the identified associated section (X, Y, Z) and for recovering the cargo are initiated by the higher-level control center (CC) (HAN, Paragraph. 0046). (HAN, Paragraph. 0044)
12. As per claim 17 HAN-Kyrtsos disclosed wherein traffic lights on the identified associated section (X, Y, Z) are controlled to regulate the traffic and/or vehicles passing through the identified associated section (X, Y, Z) are warned of a danger of the cargo (HAN, Paragraph. 0044).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
14. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights