DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 27 – 40 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 01/09/2026. Claims 27 & 34 were amended in a reply filed 05/12/2026. Claims 27 – 40 are currently pending and subject to the non-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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed after final rejection on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 01/22/2026 & 04/24/2026 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 the claims are not directed to “organizing of human activity” because “these claims do not involve any human activity” and “shipping an item” is not “a commercial activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claims recite a process for managing a shipping transaction in which, responsive to a determination that a batch of items is present, a notification is sent indicating that the items has been merged. 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).” Accordingly, the claims recite abstract idea which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, Examiner submits that the instant claims recite – and are directed to – a judicial exception.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 6 – 7, that the “technical relationship between RF transmitting power and RF receiving power of the ID nodes of a group that establishes a vicinity of the one ID node and whether the one ID node can detect another ID node of the group within the vicinity to recognize the other ID nodes as neighbors” shows that the devices involved are not merely generic computers and “provides an improvement to a system and method of wireless nodes and integrates any alleged activity into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with any assertion that a node is not a generically-recited computing device. For example, the nodes, as recited in the instant claims, perform nothing more than information receiving and transmitting, as well as making a simple determination that a detected information signal is from a recognized computing device. (e.g., another node that is a part of the set of nodes). Additionally, the additional element of “wherein the group of ID nodes include the one ID node comprise a transceiver where RF characteristics of the transceiver including an RF output power and an RF receiver sensitivity are dynamically and programmatically varied under control of a processing unit of the ID node to allow the group of ID nodes to transmit the wireless signal at an RF power level that the transceiver of the one ID node can detect for the RF receiver sensitivity of the one ID node that defines a vicinity of the one ID node” amounts 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)).
Examiner further notes that 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)). Accordingly, the nodes and associated signal transmitting/receiving functionality does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because each recited node is merely a generic computer component performing generic computer functions. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 7, that “such ID nodes being able to control RF transmission power in conjunction with an ID node being able to control RF sensitivity in order to establish a vicinity of the receiving ID node which allows for detection of neighboring ID nodes is an inventive concept, as it has not been shown to be routine or conventional.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the extra-solution functionality of “wherein the group of ID nodes include the one ID node comprise a transceiver where RF characteristics of the transceiver including an RF output power and an RF receiver sensitivity are dynamically and programmatically varied under control of a processing unit of the ID node to allow the group of ID nodes to transmit the wireless signal at an RF power level that the transceiver of the one ID node can detect for the RF receiver sensitivity of the one ID node that defines a vicinity of the one ID 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. Furthermore, the generic recitation of the variable RF output power and RF receiver sensitivity in the instant specification at [0153] (“embodiments of ID node 120a (or any other ID node) may have programmatically adjustable RF characteristics (such as an adjustable RF output signal power, an adjustable RF receiver sensitivity, the ability to switch to a different frequency or frequency band, etc.)”) demonstrates that this additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2.) and the Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
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,” “based upon the signal broadcast from the neighboring node,” and “wherein the group of ID nodes include the one ID node comprise a transceiver where RF characteristics of the transceiver including an RF output power and an RF receiver sensitivity are dynamically and programmatically varied under control of a processing unit of the ID node to allow the group of ID nodes to transmit the wireless signal at an RF power level that the transceiver of the one ID node can detect for the RF receiver sensitivity of the one ID node that defines a vicinity of the one ID 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,” “wherein the group of ID nodes include the one ID node comprise a transceiver where RF characteristics of the transceiver including an RF output power and an RF receiver sensitivity are dynamically and programmatically varied under control of a processing unit of the ID node to allow the group of ID nodes to transmit the wireless signal at an RF power level that the transceiver of the one ID node can detect for the RF receiver sensitivity of the one ID node that defines a vicinity of the one ID 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,” “wherein the group of ID nodes include the one ID node comprise a transceiver where RF characteristics of the transceiver including an RF output power and an RF receiver sensitivity are dynamically and programmatically varied under control of a processing unit of the ID node to allow the group of ID nodes to transmit the wireless signal at an RF power level that the transceiver of the one ID node can detect for the RF receiver sensitivity of the one ID node that defines a vicinity of the one ID 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. Furthermore, the generic recitation of the variable RF output power and RF receiver sensitivity in the instant specification at [0153] (“embodiments of ID node 120a (or any other ID node) may have programmatically adjustable RF characteristics (such as an adjustable RF output signal power, an adjustable RF receiver sensitivity, the ability to switch to a different frequency or frequency band, etc.)”) demonstrates that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2.) and the Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
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
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
Prosecution Insights