DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 27 – 40 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 07/02/2025. Claims 27 & 34 were amended in a reply filed 10/02/2025. Claims 27 – 40 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 08/14/2025 & 10/29/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 pg. 6, that “it is improper to refer to these claims as being directed to an abstract idea that is the organizing of human activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claims recite a process for managing a shipping transaction in which a batch of items is deemed to be grouped together. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, 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).” Additionally, the step of “determining… if the detected neighboring node is part of the group of ID nodes,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas which fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Moreover, the instant abstract states that the invention is directed to “methods and systems… for merging of a set of items being shipped,” which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, Examiner submits that the instant claims recite – and are directed to – a judicial exception.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 7, first paragraph, that “To the extent the rejection is suggesting that anything performed by the group of ID nodes and the one ID node of the group is extra solution activity, then the rejection is actually eliminating every element of the claim which is improper.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the non-final office action mailed 07/02/2025 did not assert that “anything performed by the group of ID nodes and the one ID node of the group is extra solution activity.” Rather, the non-final office action explained that additional elements associated with sending and receiving data is extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”).
Applicant next argues, on pg. 7, second paragraph, that “the group of ID nodes and the one ID node of the group of ID nodes” is not “merely being a case of a generic computer applying an abstract idea” because “these are special purpose devices, not some generic computer.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because implementing the abstract idea of shipment merging on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. That the “nodes” in the instant claims are numerous, or transient, does not alter this determination. Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery (e.g., the ID nodes) “in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Therefore, the additional claim elements which specify that the various steps are performed by the generically-recited “ID node” computing devices amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant next argues, on pg. 8, that “even if the claims did include an abstract idea, these specialized actions taken by the group of ID nodes and the one ID node of the group that are specialized devices certainly integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application considering these ID nodes have the ability to detect once they, and the items to which they are attached, have become sufficiently proximate to one another to allow for a shipment merge within the system of nodes and server.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the additional elements of “using a wireless node network,” “each ID node from the group of ID nodes being related to and coupled to a different item from the set of items being shipped,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node” merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the additional elements of “by the one ID node,” “a group of ID nodes,” “master node,” and “by the group of ID nodes” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Examiner further notes that detecting a signal is extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
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 27 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 27 – 33 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 34 – 40 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 27 – 40 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 27 & 34 substantially recite: receiving… ID node identification information… the ID node identification information defining the group of ID nodes; determining… if the detected neighboring node is part of the group of ID nodes; as a last one of the ID nodes in the group of ID nodes is detected… to be the neighboring node, notifying… to instruct… that the last one of the ID nodes in the group of ID nodes is approaching the one ID node; and receiving… a shipment merge indication.
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the functions in the context of this claim encompass managing a group of shipped items. 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).” Additionally, the “determining” step, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas which fall within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 27 & 34, as a whole, amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 27 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “server,” “a group of ID nodes,” “by the one ID node,” “by the group of ID nodes,” “master node.” Claim 34 recites the generic computer elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions,” “processor,” “by the one ID node,” “a group of ID nodes,” “master node,” “by the group of ID nodes,” and “server.” Claims 27 & 34 also recite the additional elements of: “using a wireless node network,” “at the group of ID nodes,” “from the master node,” “each ID node from the group of ID nodes being related to and coupled to a different item from the set of items being shipped,” “scanning, by one ID node of the group of ID nodes, for a wireless signal being broadcast from a neighboring node,” “detecting, by the one ID, node the wireless signal from the neighboring node,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node.”
The additional elements of “using a wireless node network,” “each ID node from the group of ID nodes being related to and coupled to a different item from the set of items being shipped,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node” merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions,” “processor,” “by the one ID node,” “a group of ID nodes,” “master node,” “by the group of ID nodes,” and “server” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount 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 “using a wireless node network,” “at the group of ID nodes,” “from the master node,” “scanning, by one ID node of the group of ID nodes, for a wireless signal being broadcast from a neighboring node,” “detecting, by the one ID, node the wireless signal from the neighboring node,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node,” when taken both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 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), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) 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) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) 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.
Furthermore, the extra-solution functionality of “using a wireless node network,” “at the group of ID nodes,” “from the master node,” “scanning, by one ID node of the group of ID nodes, for a wireless signal being broadcast from a neighboring node,” “detecting, by the one ID, node the wireless signal from the neighboring node,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions,” “processor,” “by the one ID node,” “a group of ID nodes,” “master node,” “by the group of ID nodes,” “server,” “using a wireless node network,” “at the group of ID nodes,” “from the master node,” “each ID node from the group of ID nodes being related to and coupled to a different item from the set of items being shipped,” “scanning, by one ID node of the group of ID nodes, for a wireless signal being broadcast from a neighboring node,” “detecting, by the one ID, node the wireless signal from the neighboring node,” and “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node” 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 28 – 33 & 35 – 40 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional element of “wherein the master node is associated with a containment” in claims 29 & 36, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional element of “wherein the containment is a customs holding area” in claims 30 & 37, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional element of “storing customs information in a memory of each of the ID nodes in the group of ID nodes” in claims 33 & 40, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), as well as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting “Electronic recordkeeping” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus does not amount to significantly more. 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
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 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
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628