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 filed2/11/2026. Claims 1, 6 and 17 were amended. Claim 4 was cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Unlike the abstract idea of "tracking" which could be done manually, the present claims require the automated generation of a location-stamped digital identity for a physical shipping container. This specific implementation addresses the technical challenge of maintaining a worldwide database with high data integrity across disparate computer servers (e.g., the first and second user devices). This is a "practical application" of the concept that provides a technical solution to the problem of container displacement and identification errors. Applicant's claimed invention is not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity." Humans do not "generate bounding boxes" or "execute object detection algorithms."… Applicant's amended Claim 1 does not merely recite the general concept of "tracking." Instead, Claim 1, as amended, recites a specific, machine-implemented process for improving the accuracy of optical character recognition in high-throughput shipping environments. The requirement of an object detection algorithm that generates bounding boxes to isolate data is a specific technological improvement over manual or conventional data entry methods. Furthermore, the synchronization of GPS coordinates and optical code data into a unified data packet creates essentially a "digital twin" with a degree of geographic veracity that cannot be performed by mental processes or human organization. As such, amended Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and is patent-eligible under Step 2A - Prong 2 of the 2019 PEG. Even if the Examiner were to find that the claims recite an abstract idea, the additional elements in Claim 1, taken as an ordered combination, provide "significantly more." The combination of bounding box extraction linked to real-time database synchronization and automated notification is not "well understood, routine, or conventional" in the industry. These elements provide a specific technical framework that significantly enhances the reliability of worldwide shipping logistics. Applicant's claimed invention improves the reliability of data capture in harsh shipping environments via specific computer-vision techniques. Specifically, as recited in amended independent Claim 1, Applicant claims "executing, via a GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device, an object detection algorithm that generates bounding boxes to isolate and extract a code on each of the plurality of shipping containers using an optical scanner, wherein the code on each of the plurality of shipping containers provides specific identifying information including the specifications and the information on the CSC plate for the particular shipping container." This is a specialized computer-vision technique. This allows for identifying a code, such as a BIC code, on a weathered, metallic shipping container surface using bounding boxes and character isolation, thus providing a technical improvement in optical character recognition (OCR) technology in a harsh environment”, (see remarks , pg. 6-9).
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 tracking shipping containers, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as an individual with a database can preview recorded data for the containers location at given periods of time, to analyze and determine containers’ location. The computing elements such as “GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device, optical scanner, GPS location technology, computer database server, websites, software, first computer server device, email, user computer device of claim 1” 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 and 5-10 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 tracking shipping containers.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “obtaining specifications of each of a plurality of shipping containers including information on a CSC plate attached to each of the plurality of containers; executing, an object detection algorithm that generates bounding boxes to isolate and on each of the plurality of shipping containers, wherein each of the plurality of shipping containers provides specific identifying information including the specifications and the information on the CSC plate for particular shipping container; determining the geographic location of the particular shipping container at the time of scanning; capturing data including the specific identifying information and the determined geographic location of the particular shipping container at the time of scanning; transmitting the scanned and captured data and geographic location supporting one or more container management with asset tracking installed; allowing a first user to access the database server via the one or more container management and obtain the identifying information and location tracking information of the plurality of shipping containers including the particular shipping container; allowing a second user on a second user computer device to access the first user computer server and search for the current geographic location of one or more of the plurality of shipping containers, as well as the identifying information of each of the one or more plurality of shipping containers; and performing a search in the database server until a match is made for the one or more shipping containers and sending an automated email notification to at least the second user when the particular shipping container is identified, including the current geographical location of the shipping container” 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 (GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device, optical scanner, GPS location technology, computer database server, websites, software, first computer server device, email, user computer device of claim 1) 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 and 5-10 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 (GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device, optical scanner, GPS location technology, computer database server, websites, software, first computer server device, email, user computer device of claim 1). The GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device, optical scanner, GPS location technology, computer database server, websites, software, first computer server device, email, user computer device of claim 1, 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 2-3, 5-10 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the email in claims 7; BIC code in claims 2, 5; QR code in claims 5-7 and 9-10; GPS-enabled portable electronic computer device in claims 6 and 10; GPS location technology in claim 6; GPS map in claim 8; computer database server in claim 6; websites in claim 10; first computer server device of claim 8; map display in claim 8; monitor in claim 8; user computer device in claim 8, 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
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
Prosecution Insights