DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to a Divisional patent application filed by Applicant on 11/22/2024.
On 4/9/2026, in response to a Requirement for Restriction issued on 2/9/2026, Applicant elected claims 5 and 6 and claims 1–4 were withdrawn.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted by applicant on 12/9/2024, 1/14/2025, 5/8/2025, and 1/30/2026 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Double Patenting
No conflicting application or issued patent was identified that would require a rejection under double patenting.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving a data value, determining the data value is approved, determining the data value is associated with an active alert, evaluating compliance of the approved data value.
The limitations of receiving a data value, determining the data value is approved, determining the data value is associated with an active alert, evaluating compliance of the approved data value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the server”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a server” language, “receiving … a data value from a batch run of a product” amounts to a person reading a value from a manufacturing machine numerical display. Further, the “determining … the data value is approved” amounts to a person comparing the received value to an operations manual. Similarly, “determining … the approved data value is associated with an active alert” amounts to a person also comparing the received value to a list of alerts. Finally, “evaluating … compliance of the approved data value with the limit or rule” is again a simple comparing the value with a list of data limits. All of these steps cover performance that can be accomplished by the mind and would fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites, transmitting, by the server, an alert notification to a user indicating compliance, which can be categorized merely as insignificant post solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of transmitting an alert notification amounts to applying the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it defines a step of receiving, by a server, a selection from a user to activate one or more alerts associated with the data value, but it’s ambiguous what the selection to “activate one or more alerts” actually performs (aside from activating an alert, which is merely a notification). This limitation can be described as part of the mental step (user choses to activate an alert) using conventional computer functions (receiving data over a network). Therefore, the dependent claim is also directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 5–6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrall (US 2016/0034907 A1, published Feb. 4, 2016) in view of Schubert (US 2019/0236514 A1, published Aug. 1, 2019).
Regarding claim 5, Worrall discloses: a method of providing select data compliance feedback in real time to a user, comprising: receiving, by a server, a data value from a batch run of a product (data such as location and temperature readings of a food product preparation process cycle are transmitted to a management application. Worrall ¶ 42.); determining, by the server, the approved data value is associated with an active alert, wherein the active alert is related to a limit or rule associated with the data value (associating the location and/or a temperature reading with a quality or safety rule. Worrall ¶¶ 38 and 42. A pot of soup exceeds an HACCP guideline parameter and an alert is sent to the user to correct the issue. Worrall ¶ 49.); evaluating, by the server, compliance of the approved data value with the limit or rule (safety application configured to received food product data and apply rules to the data. Worrall ¶ 38.); and transmitting, by the server, an alert notification to a user indicating compliance of the approved data value with the limit or rule based on the evaluation (a graphic such as the color and outer ring visualization indicating the remaining time the food product may be kept in the current location. Worrall ¶ 42. Therefore, the location and temperature of the food product is approved, but requires attention by user in order for the product to not exceed food safety limits.)
Worrall does not disclose: determining, by the server, the data value is approved.
However, Schubert does disclose: determining, by the server, the data value is approved (workflow checks whether the user approved of the data entry in the first user task. Schubert ¶¶ 32–33.).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring of food products by receiving sensor data and comparing the data with production and safety rules to generate alerts to users when in compliance but requiring potential action of Worrall with approval of input data values based upon the teachings of Schubert. The motivation being to verify the accuracy or acceptability of input data prior to moving forward with action steps in a process.
Regarding claim 6, Worrall in view of Schubert discloses the limitations of claim 5, further comprising receiving, by the server, a selection from a user to activate one or more alerts associated with the data value, wherein the one or more alerts comprise the active alert (configuring a plurality of product tags to monitor a specific food product to continuously take temperature readings in order to detect violations of business rules such as safe temperature ranges, shelf life and the like and the rules change, becoming selectively “active” based upon the lifecycle of the food product. Worrall ¶¶ 14–17.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nachenberg (US 10,033,764 B1, issued Jul. 24, 2018), generating batch view metrics to determine hygiene and compliance violation monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights