DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 43, 45 – 47, 49, and 50 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not adequately address the rejection of claim 43 (which has been currently amended to include limitations of dependent claim 48) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous office action. Specifically, Applicant does not point out how the limitations of amended claim 43 aren’t directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more (see rejection below).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103(a) set forth in the previous office action are persuasive and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been withdrawn.
Priority Date
The instant application is a divisional of 17/166828 (filed 2/3/2021). 17/166828 is a divisional of 14/756054 (filed 7/27/2015). 14/756054 is a continuation in part of 14/121847 (filed 10/24/2014). 14/121847 is a divisional of 13/506478 (filed 4/23/2012). The earliest application which includes support for the limitations of the claimed invention is 14/756054 (filed 7/27/2015). Therefore, the claims of the instant application are given an earliest effective filing date of 7/27/2015.
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 43, 45 – 47, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
With respect to claim 43, under the Alice framework Step 1, the claim recites a method.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 43 recites an abstract idea in the grouping of mental process. The claim recites “determining each object located with a vehicle, said determining each object located with a vehicle comprising: identifying each beacon unique identifier disposed with an initial vehicle location, identifying each beacon unique identifier disposed with a second vehicle location, said second vehicle location determined by one of a speed, distance, location or geofence wherein said identifying each beacon unique identifier disposed with a second vehicle location determines a number of objects disposed with a vehicle” and “identifying one or more beacon unique identifiers and beacon data associated with a third vehicle location, comparing said beacon data with said second data, when said beacon data is beyond a damage threshold or damage limit value of said second data, communicating an object damage condition, and for each beacon unique identifier of the one or more beacon unique identifiers, comparing said beacon unique identifier disposed with said second vehicle location to the presence or absence of said beacon unique identifier a the third vehicle location” which could be performed in the human mind. Specifically, a human could identify identifiers associated with packages at one location and identifiers associated with packages at another vehicle location, identify identifiers at a third location, notice when damage is above a limit, and compare identifiers to determine a presence or absence of an identifier, which could be performed by a human in their mind. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 43 recites additional elements of “a vehicle,” “telemetry log of telemetry data” and “objects.” These elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to include limitations that detail the structure of the claimed elements or how they function. Accordingly, these elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the claimed steps, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claim 43 additionally recites “providing access to first data that identifies and associates beacon unique identifiers with objects,” “providing access to second data of threshold values and limits associated with beacon data,” “providing access to a preprocessing telemetry log of telemetry data,” “accessing said preprocessing telemetry log of telemetry data,” and “communicating a missing object condition if said beacon unique identifier is absent at said third vehicle location” which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations are merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under the Alice framework Step 2B analysis, the claimed limitations of "providing access to first data that identifies and associates beacon unique identifiers with objects,” “providing access to second data of threshold values and limits associated with beacon data,” “providing access to a preprocessing telemetry log of telemetry data," “accessing said preprocessing telemetry log of telemetry data,” and “communicating a missing object condition if said beacon unique identifier is absent at said third vehicle location” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Therefore, claim 43 is directed to a judicial exception and is not patent eligible.
Claims 45 – 47, 49 and 50 are rejected for at least the reasons provided with respect to claim 43. Claims 45 – 47, 49 and 50 contain no further additional elements beyond claim 43 that would require consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43, 45 – 47, 49, and 50 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 43, 45 – 47, 49, and 50 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth above because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination for each beacon unique identifier of the one or more beacon unique identifiers, comparing said beacon unique identifier disposed with said second vehicle location to the presence or absence of said beacon unique identifier at the third vehicle location, and communicate a missing object condition if said beacon unique identifier is absent at said third vehicle location, as required by dependent claim 43, in combination with the other claimed limitations (emphasis added). The prior art of record teaches determining that an identifier is associated with a beacon at a first and second location, but does not teach the missing object condition detection at a third vehicle location required by independent claim 43.
Claims 45 – 47, 49, and 50 would also be allowable because of their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon allowable independent claim 43.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD B FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0669. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/RICHARD B FRANKLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2181
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights