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 Application
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1 and 17 were amended. Claim(s) 7 and 18-20 were originally/previously presented. Claim(s) 21-33 were newly added. Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-16 were cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 17-33 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 06, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, on page 9 of applicant’s response, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the claim interpretation of Claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page(s) 9-10 of Applicant’s Response, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 10-14 of Applicant’s Response, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim 1 has been fully considered but they are persuasive.
However, with respect to the Dependent Claims 2-33 that depend from Claim 1 remain rejected, see the below analysis.
Examiner, respectfully, notes that even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein, see MPEP 2106.07.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 10-14 of Applicant’s Response, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 17-33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page(s) 7-8, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1 and 10 are not directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments. As an initial matter, applicant’s limitations were not considered to be directed non-statutory subject matter. Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Like the other steps in the eligibility analysis, evaluation of this step should be made after determining what the inventor has invented by reviewing the entire application disclosure and construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), see MPEP § 2106, subsection II. In the context of the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 determines whether: (1) the claim as a whole does not fall within any statutory category (Step 1: NO) and thus is non-statutory, warranting a rejection for failure to claim statutory subject matter; or (2) the claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories (Step 1: YES), and thus must be further analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as eligible at Pathway A or requires further analysis at Step 2A to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. In this case, applicant’s limitations are directed to a method. All the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process and machine, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test, thus requiring the examiner to further analysis applicant’s limitations under Step 2A to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, applicant’s limitations are directed to one of the statutory categories.
After determining that the claim is within one of the statutory categories the process moves to Step A. In this case, Step 2A Prong One, asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP §2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Examiner, respectfully, notes that in the Non-Final office action mailed 09/29/2025 on pages 6-8, provided a detailed analysis as to how applicant’s claims were characterized under the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity in light of applicant’s specification. Examiner, also, notes that the non-final provided the limitations that are considered under Step 2A Prong 1.
The above grouping along with its sub-groupings can encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub- grouping(s), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the
subject matter groupings of the abstract idea are recited as Independent Claim 17, respectively, recites “providing one or more products associated with one or more shipments,” “detecting a location entity,” and “creating, a trip for the one or more shipments associated upon a positive matching of the detected location with an origin and correspondingly marking the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to a trip automation rule,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, where the court found
that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the
business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the
vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain
methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business
relationship between an entity and customer(s), which, the entity monitors shipments, which the entity can then create a shipment trip based on matching products origin locations thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as monitoring and tracing shipments. Also, see GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc., 2015 WL 6747142, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (finding claims directed to "booking and tracing container shipments through a third party is an abstraction" because the use of a third party intermediary and shipping of goods are established and "conventional business practice[s]"); Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405, 415 (D.N.J. 2015) (finding the "process of monitoring and moving shipping containers and collecting the relevant data as to the location of the shipping containers" is "an abstraction.” Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, which satisfies Step 2A Prong One and now we move to the Step 2A Prong Two analysis.
Since the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Step 2A Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’), see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses the system improves an hands-off approach to efficiently create and manage a large number of trips, see paragraph(s) 0040 and 0044. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely making a bare assertion of the improvement without any details of how the detecting and creating trip information for shipments help reduce the inconveniences using non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0040, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
However, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “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. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when merely efficiently creating and managing trip information is improved, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0040, merely appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of tracking and monitoring shipments thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery 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. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely providing, detecting, and creating, shipment information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., housing, one or more sensors, one or more monitoring devices, and a server), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which the courts stated merely 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. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a specific way for improving efficiency for creating and managing trips, see paragraph 0040, however, the mere increase in efficiency of monitoring and creating shipment information doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Also, it should be noted that Independent Claim 17 is not as narrowly claimed as Independent Claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 13, that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 since the claims meet the standard that it is more likely than not that the claim(s) are patent eligible. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, when evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter. The evaluation of whether the claimed invention qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter should be made on a claim-by-claim basis, because claims do not automatically rise or fall with similar claims in an application. For example, even if an independent claim is determined to be ineligible, the dependent claims may be eligible because they add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein.
If the evaluation of the claimed invention results in a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the claim as a whole does not satisfy both criteria for eligibility (Step 1: NO and/or Step 2B: NO), then examiners should formulate an appropriate rejection of that claim under Step 1 and/or Step 2B. The rejection should set forth a prima facie case of ineligibility under the substantive law. The concept of the prima facie case is a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and applicant. In particular, the initial burden is on the examiner to explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond.
When an examiner determines a claim does not fall within a statutory category (Step 1: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation of why the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03 for a discussion of Step 1 and the statutory categories of invention. When an examiner determines that a claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO), the rejection should provide an explanation for each part of the Step 2 analysis. For example, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception, identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, and explain the reason(s) that the additional elements taken individually, and also taken as a combination, 1) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and 2) do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2A and the judicial exceptions, MPEP § 2106.05 et seq. for a discussion of Step 2B and the search for an inventive concept, and MPEP § 2106.07(a) for more information on formulating an ineligibility rejection. See, MPEP 2106.07.
Examiner, has provided a detailed analysis on how applicant’s limitations recite an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application, see the Non-Final Office action on page(s) 3-11 and 13-22. Examiner has provided why applicant’s limitations are more likely than not unpatentable as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner, has provided arguments, with specific evidence from applicants current claims and specification, along with relevant court cases. Thus, showing applicants current claims are more likely than not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner, also, notes that even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein, see MPEP 2106.07.
Regarding Claim 18 the additional limitation of “defining,” “assigning,” “assigning,” providing,” and “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 18 recite(s) “defining the trip automation rule for the one or more shipments by,” “assigning the one or more products for one or more origin locations,” “assigning the one or more origin locations to an origin location group,” “providing an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, a threshold range of attributes for the one or more products, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “determining the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location associated with the corresponding products is found to be stationary outside a geofence of the origin, based on duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely defining, assigning, assigning, providing, and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 19 the additional limitation of “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 19 recite(s) “determining the one or more products to be at an intermediate stop when the detected location found to be stationary for a second duration outside a geofence of the origin, and any of the monitored attributes of the products is found to be beyond a threshold range during the second duration,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 19 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 20 the additional limitation of “monitoring,” and “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 20 recite(s) “wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations,” “monitoring real-time location of upon creation of the trip,” and “determining and confirming the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location is found to be within a geofence of the corresponding locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 20 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 21 the additional limitation of “receiving,” “detecting,” “creating,” “determining,” and “creating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 21 recite(s) “receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “detect a location entity upon activation,” “automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule,” “upon activation determine whether a trip is already created for the one or more shipments,” and “upon the determination that when the trip has not been created, create the trip for the respective shipments when the detected location entity matches with the origin,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, detecting, creating, determining, and creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 21 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 22 the additional limitation of “receiving,” “detecting,” “creating,” “checking,” “validating,” “comparing,” and “creating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 22 recite(s) “receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “detect a location entity upon activation,” “automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule,” “check and validate the trip automation rule upon receiving, by comparing a program mapping of the products,” and “create the trip and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping of the products and the program mapping,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, detecting, creating, checking,” validating, comparing, and creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 22 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 23 the additional limitation of “creating,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 23 recites “automatically create the trip and mark a system default value as the marked origin for the created trip, either when the detection location is unavailable or on negative matching of the detected location entity with the origin of any of the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 23 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 24 the additional limitation of “extracting,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 24 recites “extract, from the trip automation rule, details of the one or more products being mapped to the created trip and correspondingly enable adding the corresponding products to the marked origin,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely extracting, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 24 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 25 recite(s) “wherein the attributes associated with the one or more products further comprise one or more of: temperature, ambient light, humidity, gas composition, and pressure, and wherein the trip automation rule further comprises the threshold range of the attributes for the one or more products,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely detecting, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 25 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 26 the additional limitation of “determining,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 26 recites “determine the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location of associated with the corresponding products is found to be stationary outside a geofence of the origin, based on duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 26 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 27 recites “wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 27 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 28 the additional limitation of “monitoring,” and “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 28 recites “monitor a location upon creation of the trip,” and “determine and confirm the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location is found to be within the geofence of the corresponding locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 28 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 29 the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 29 recites “determine the one or more products to be at one of the intermediate stops when the detected is found to be stationary within the intermediate stops or within the geofence of the corresponding intermediate stops defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 28 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 30 the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 30 recites “determine the one or more products to be at one of the intermediate stops when the detected is found to be stationary within the destination or within the geofence of destination defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 30 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 31 the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 31 recites “determine the one or more products to be in an in-transit state when the detected location is found to be moving and outside the geofence of the one or more locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 31 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 32 the additional limitation of “allowing,” and “monitoring,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more mobile devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 32 recites “allow the one or more registered users and the registered entities, based on access and role defined in the trip automation rule, to monitor the attributes of the one or more products and further monitor the location and a corresponding halt time and time stamp of the one or more products being confirmed and notified by the one or more processors during the trip,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and allowing, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 32 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 33 the additional limitation of “creating,” and “updating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more mobile devices and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 33 recites “allows the one or more registered users and/or the registered entities to manually create and/or update, the trip automation rule based on access and role defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely creating and updating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 33 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 7, and 17-33 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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(s) 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim 17, recites an entity that is able to monitor and create shipment trip information Independent Claim 17, as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 17, recites providing one or more products associated with one or more shipments,” “detecting a location entity,” and “creating, a trip for the one or more shipments associated upon a positive matching of the detected location with an origin and correspondingly marking the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to a trip automation rule,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.).For instance, in this case, Independent Claim 17, are similar to an entity that monitors shipments, which the entity can then create a shipment trip based on matching products origin locations. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 17: housing, one or more sensors, a server, and one or more monitoring devices) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim 17, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “providing,” “detecting,” and “creating,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 17: housing, one or more sensors, a server, and one or more monitoring devices). Examiner, notes that the housing, one or more sensors, server, and one or more monitoring devices, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery 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. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely providing, detecting, and creating, shipment information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., housing, one or more sensors, server, and one or more monitoring devices), which are no more than using instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea thus merely amounting to “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, which the courts stated merely 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. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a specific way for improving efficiency for creating and managing trips, see paragraph 0040, however, the mere increase in efficiency of monitoring and creating shipment information doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 18: the additional limitation of “defining,” “assigning,” “assigning,” providing,” and “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 18 recite(s) “defining the trip automation rule for the one or more shipments by,” “assigning the one or more products for one or more origin locations,” “assigning the one or more origin locations to an origin location group,” “providing an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, a threshold range of attributes for the one or more products, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “determining the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location associated with the corresponding products is found to be stationary outside a geofence of the origin, based on duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely defining, assigning, assigning, providing, and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19: the additional limitation of “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 19 recite(s) “determining the one or more products to be at an intermediate stop when the detected location found to be stationary for a second duration outside a geofence of the origin, and any of the monitored attributes of the products is found to be beyond a threshold range during the second duration,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 19 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20: the additional limitation of “monitoring,” and “determining,” “are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 20 recite(s) “wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations,” “monitoring real-time location of upon creation of the trip,” and “determining and confirming the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location is found to be within a geofence of the corresponding locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 20 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21: the additional limitation of “receiving,” “detecting,” “creating,” “determining,” and “creating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 21 recite(s) “receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “detect a location entity upon activation,” “automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule,” “upon activation determine whether a trip is already created for the one or more shipments,” and “upon the determination that when the trip has not been created, create the trip for the respective shipments when the detected location entity matches with the origin,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, detecting, creating, determining, and creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 21 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22: the additional limitation of “receiving,” “detecting,” “creating,” “checking,” “validating,” “comparing,” and “creating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 22 recite(s) “receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment,” “detect a location entity upon activation,” “automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule,” “check and validate the trip automation rule upon receiving, by comparing a program mapping of the products,” and “create the trip and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping of the products and the program mapping,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, detecting, creating, checking,” validating, comparing, and creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 22 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 23: the additional limitation of “creating,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 23 recites “automatically create the trip and mark a system default value as the marked origin for the created trip, either when the detection location is unavailable or on negative matching of the detected location entity with the origin of any of the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely creating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 23 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 24: the additional limitation of “extracting,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 24 recites “extract, from the trip automation rule, details of the one or more products being mapped to the created trip and correspondingly enable adding the corresponding products to the marked origin,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely extracting, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 24 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 25: recite(s) “wherein the attributes associated with the one or more products further comprise one or more of: temperature, ambient light, humidity, gas composition, and pressure, and wherein the trip automation rule further comprises the threshold range of the attributes for the one or more products,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely detecting, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 25 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 26: the additional limitation of “determining,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 26 recites “determine the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location of associated with the corresponding products is found to be stationary outside a geofence of the origin, based on duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 26 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 27: recites “wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 27 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 28: the additional limitation of “monitoring,” and “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 28 recites “monitor a location upon creation of the trip,” and “determine and confirm the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location is found to be within the geofence of the corresponding locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 28 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 29: the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 29 recites “determine the one or more products to be at one of the intermediate stops when the detected is found to be stationary within the intermediate stops or within the geofence of the corresponding intermediate stops defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 28 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 30: the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 30 recites “determine the one or more products to be at one of the intermediate stops when the detected is found to be stationary within the destination or within the geofence of destination defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 30 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 31: the additional limitation of “determining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more processors and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 31 recites “determine the one or more products to be in an in-transit state when the detected location is found to be moving and outside the geofence of the one or more locations,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and determining, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 31 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 32: the additional limitation of “allowing,” and “monitoring,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more mobile devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 32 recites “allow the one or more registered users and the registered entities, based on access and role defined in the trip automation rule, to monitor the attributes of the one or more products and further monitor the location and a corresponding halt time and time stamp of the one or more products being confirmed and notified by the one or more processors during the trip,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely monitoring and allowing, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 32 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 33: the additional limitation of “creating,” and “updating,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. The one or more mobile devices and one or more monitoring devices are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 33 recites “allows the one or more registered users and/or the registered entities to manually create and/or update, the trip automation rule based on access and role defined in the trip automation rule,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation and/or evaluation).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely creating and updating, shipment product information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 33 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
The dependent claim(s) 18-33, above do 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(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 17-33 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pearce (US 2025/0013837 A1)(provisional filed Jul. 5, 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Pearce, teaches a system for real-time inbound trip automation and event monitoring for shipments, the system comprising:
one or more products associated with one or more shipments. (Paragraph 0101)(Pearce teaches a receiver/transmitter devices can be with and/or attached to physical transport platforms (e.g., one or more shipments), which carry multiple shipment unit items (e.g., one or more products)
one or more monitoring devices comprising: (Paragraph 120)(Pearce teaches a receiver/transmitter device (e.g., one or more monitoring devices)
a housing affixed either directly to the one or more products or a packaging device of the one or more products. (Paragraph(s) 0096 and 0120)(Pearce teaches a housing that is mounted to the transport platform. The transport platform can include the pallets, containers (i.e., packaging device of the one or more products) and/or the packages (i.e., one or more products)(e.g., housing affixed either directly to the one or more products or a packaging device of the one or more products))
one or more sensors configured to detect attributes and location of the one or more products. (Paragraph(s) 0120, 0133, and 0135)(Pearce teaches the housing can include sensors. The sensors can be used to monitor environmental factors including temperature, vibration, humidity, and/or acceleration for determining the condition of the shipment unit. The sensors can also include detecting location information of the shipment units)
a server comprising one or more processors coupled to a memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors. (Paragraph(s) 0010 and 0119)(Pearce teaches a server with at least one processor in communication with the receiver/transmitter processor of the receiver/transmitter devices. The server includes a cloud-based database)
Regarding Claim 7, Pearce, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and teaches wherein the attachment means is any one or a combination of: screws, nails, rivets, adhesives, magnets, hook and loop fasteners, hook and slot fasteners, interlocking elements, friction-grip releasable fasteners, and fastening straps. (Paragraph(s) 0018, 0096, 0120, and 0149)(Pearce teaches a receiver/transmitter device includes a housing that encloses environmental sensors. The housing is mounted to the transport platform by brackets, fasteners, adhesive pads and similar fastener mechanisms. The fasteners can include a screw, nail or bracket. The transport platform can include pallets, containers, packages, or other enclosures)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2025/0013837 A1)(provisional filed Jul. 5, 2023) in view of Cova et al. (US 2011/0054979 A1) and further in view of Hamm et al. (US 2011/0078089 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Pearce, teaches a method for real-time inbound trip automation and event monitoring of shipments, the method comprising the steps of:
providing one or more products associated with one or more shipments. (Paragraph 0101)(Pearce teaches a receiver/transmitter devices can be with and/or attached to physical transport platforms (e.g., one or more shipments), which carry multiple shipment unit items (e.g., one or more products)
providing one or more monitoring devices comprising: (Paragraph 120)(Pearce teaches a receiver/transmitter device (e.g., one or more monitoring devices)
a housing affixed either directly to the one or more products or a packaging device of the one or more products. (Paragraph(s) 0096 and 0120)(Pearce teaches a housing that is mounted to the transport platform. The transport platform can include the pallets, containers (i.e., packaging device of the one or more products) and/or the packages (i.e., one or more products)(e.g., housing affixed either directly to the one or more products or a packaging device of the one or more products))
one or more sensors configured to detect attributes and location of the one or more products. (Paragraph(s) 0120, 0133, and 0135)(Pearce teaches the housing can include sensors. The sensors can be used to monitor environmental factors including temperature, vibration, humidity, and/or acceleration for determining the condition of the shipment unit. The sensors can also include detecting location information of the shipment units)
With respect to the above limitations: while Pearce teaches a housing that encloses sensors, which the housing is attached to the shipments and/or the packaging of the products. Pearce, further, teaches that the sensors can monitor and detect temperature, humidity, location, and various other parameters of the shipment. However, Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach detecting a location entity of the monitoring devices upon activation of the monitoring device. The system can then create a trip for the shipments associated with the activated monitoring devices of the detected location of the activated monitoring devices with an origin and correspondingly marking the detec4ed location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked object based on a positive match.
But, Cova et al. in the analogous art of tracking physical shipping assets, teaches
detecting, by a server, a location entity of one or more monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devices. (Paragraph(s) 0023 and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches when the tag wakes up (e.g., control signal) then the system can receive geofence data identifying boundaries of locations of intertest in the asset journey. The geofence data can include latitude and longitude coordinates. The system can receive a position fix for the asset such as the GPS of the tag. Cova et al., further, teaches the event server of the system can receive the position fix and event information from the asset tag. The event server can then determine that the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest (e.g., detect a location entity of the one or more monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devise based on the monitored location received in the control signal))
creating, with the server, a trip for the one or more shipments associated with the activated monitoring devices of the detected location of the activated monitoring devices with an origin and correspondingly marking the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to a trip automation rule. (Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0033, and 0038-0039)(Cova et al. teaches when a tag is coupled to the asset the tag generates a process event notification indicating the tag is associated with the asset, which can take place at the origin location. The tag and the asset begin their journey, which occurs at a warehouse from where the shipment is being shipped. The location can be associated with a geofence that defines the boundaries of the locations. Cova et al., further, teaches that the event server can determine that the location of the asset is within the boundary of a particular location of interest. The event server determines that the location of the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest by determining whether the coordinates specified by the position fix are inside the boundary associated with one of the locations of interest (e.g., the activated monitoring devices upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity). Cova et al., further teaches the server can generate a notification indicating that the asset has entered the particular location of interest. Cova et al., also, teaches the notification can be a map of the route taken by the asset for a location event or associated between an event and the content of an asset associated with the event. The map can display the event locations (e.g., instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, by incorporating the teachings of a system that wakes up a sensor based on location information, which the system can then generate event location information based on the location of the sensor tracking of Cova et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve notifying users of potential problems with the shipments in advance. (Cova et al.: Paragraph 0006)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cova et al. teaches monitoring an asset with a sensor tag. The system can monitor the temperature, humidity, and other environmental conditions of the asset. The system can then compare the coordinates of the asset to determine a map for the environmental events that occur with the asset, which the environmental events will be placed on map along with the asset location information. However, to the extent Cova et al. and Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach positively matching the detected location of the origin of the monitoring device see Hamm et al. below.
But, Hamm et al. in the analogous art of shipment, teaches the trip for the one or more shipments associated with the activated monitoring devices upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin. (Paragraph(s) 0083 and 0118-0122)(Hamm et al. teaches one or more sensor devices that are set up based on the requirements of a shipper. The sensor devices may be activated and associated with the items being shipped. The sensors can be attached to the packaging associated with the item and associated with a tracking number. The sensor device can also include sensors to detect one or more locations, which the data will be transmitted to a tracking center. The tracking center can then query the database and aggregated the information, which can then determine possible locations or zones along the shipment route that may adversely affect the shipment. The system can then adjust the route for future or existing shipments such as routing the shipment though Memphis to Los Angeles through Minneapolis (e.g., create the trip). Hamm et al., also, teaches that based on the data sent by the sensor device the system can match the origin and destination of the current shipments)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce and using a system that monitors an asset with a sensor tag of Cova et al., by incorporating the teachings of a system that matches the origin location to an asst, which is used to adjust a route for a future or existing shipment of Hamm et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve asset management using information about the environment. (Hamm et al.: Paragraph 0007)
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2025/0013837 A1)(provisional filed Jul. 5, 2023) in view of Cova et al. (US 2011/0054979 A1) and further in view of Hamm et al. (US 2011/0078089 A1) and further in view of Parruck et al. (US 2016/0371643 A1
Regarding Claim 18, Pearce/Cova et al./Hamm et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17 and defining the trip automation rule for the one or more shipments by:
Determining the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location of the one or more monitoring devices associated with the corresponding products is found to be 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches the system can define geofences around locations such as ports (e.g., intermediate stops). Cova et al., further, teaches the system can determine that the asset has left a port or other designated area when the location is outside the geofence associated with the designated area)
With respect to the above limitations: while Pearce teaches a housing that encloses sensors, which the housing is attached to the shipments and/or the packaging of the products. Pearce, further, teaches that the sensors can monitor and detect temperature, humidity, location, and various other parameters of the shipment. The sensors can determine threshold ranges for the products. However, Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach defining trip automation rules by assigning the one or more products one or more origin locations. The system will assign the one or more origin locations to a origin pickup group. The origin of the trip corresponds to the shipments and details of the products are mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment. The system can then determine the one or more products to be in any one of arrival event, intermediate stop, or a destination if the product is found to be stationary outside of the geofence, based on duration of the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range.
But, Cova et al. in the analogous art of tracking physical shipping assets
providing an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment. (Paragraph(s) 0015, 0023, and 0030)(Cova et al. teaches a tag wakes up periodically to initiate communication with the event server and to send even notifications to the event server. Cova et al., further, teaches that the tag can be programmed to wake up periodically to send even notifications that include an indication event, a location of the assent when the event occurred, and additional details. Cova et al., also, teaches that the asset tag can generate tracking event notifications to the event server, which, includes the current location of the asset, the path that the asset has traveled from the origin location, and tracking events. Cova et al., also teaches that the environmental events can be associated with acceptable ranges for the temperature, humidity, shock, and/or acceleration)
determining the one or more products to be in any one of: an arrival event at an unspecified stop, an intermediate stop, or a destination, when the monitored location of the one or more monitoring devices associated with the corresponding products is found to be outside a geofence of the origin. Paragraph(s) 0015, 0023, 0030, and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches the system can define geofences around locations such as ports (e.g., intermediate stops). Cova et al., further, teaches the system can determine that the asset has left a port or other designated area when the location is outside the geofence associated with the designated area)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, by incorporating the teachings of a system that wakes up a sensor based on location information, which the system can then determine the position of the asset of Cova et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve notifying users of potential problems with the shipments in advance. (Cova et al.: Paragraph 0006)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cova et al. teaches determining rules and origins for a tag that is associated with a package. However, Cova et al. and Pearce, to the extent that Cova et al. doesn’t teach threshold values to the rule see Hamm et al. below. Cova et al. and Pearce, also, doesn’t explicitly teach determine that the asset was stationary within an intermediate location for a certain duration of time.
But, Hamm et al. in the analogous art of shipment, teaches
assigning the one or more products for one or more origin locations. (Paragraph(s) 0100-0104)(Hamm et al. teaches the user can set alerts based on various threshold. The party can set an start, intermediate, and points, which can be set at the beginning of the shipment and modified remotely)
assigning the one or more origin locations to an origin location group. (Paragraph(s) 0100-0104)(Hamm et al. teaches the user can set alerts based on various threshold. The party can set an start, intermediate, and points, which can be set at the beginning of the shipment and modified remotely. The party can define the origin of the shipments as an address or a geofence boundary enclosing a particular area (e.g., location group))
Providing an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, a threshold range of attributes for the one or more products. (Paragraph(s) 0073, 0076, 0100-0104)(Hamm et al. teaches the user can set alerts based on various threshold. The party can set an start, intermediate, and points, which can be set at the beginning of the shipment and modified remotely. The party can define the origin of the shipments as an address or a geofence boundary enclosing a particular area. The party can also set environmental thresholds and location boundaries that are stored on the sensor device. The events can include a temperature reaching a certain threshold)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce and using a system that monitors an asset with a sensor tag of Cova et al., by incorporating the teachings of rules being set for assigning shipment origin locations and threshold ranges for the shipment items of Hamm et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve asset management using information about the environment. (Hamm et al.: Paragraph 0007)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hamm et al. teaches assigning origin locations to the shipment and threshold ranges for the shipments. However, Cova et al., Pearce, and Hamm et al., do not explicitly teach determine that the asset was stationary within an intermediate location for a certain duration of time.
But, Parruck et al. in the analogous art of shipment, teaches when the monitored location of the one or more monitoring devices associated with the corresponding products is found to be stationary outside a geofence of the origin, based on duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range. (Paragraph 0017); and (Claim 12)(Parruck et al. teaches shipment locations include an intermediate stops. The system can determine that the wireless tracker on the asset has remained stationary for amount of time. The system can then determine that the current location of the wireless tracker is the pre-defined shipment location or a new location. The system can determine that the shipment has remained stationary at one of the locations for longer than a time threshold (e.g., duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range) then the system will determine that the shipment is at a location when the shipment has remained at a location for longer than a time threshold)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, using a system that monitors an asset with a sensor tag of Cova et al., and a system that matches the origin location to an asst, which is used to adjust a route for a future or existing shipment of Hamm et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining the asset is stationary within an intermediate location for a certain amount of time of Parruck et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to reduce shipment mistakes. (Parruck et al.: Paragraph(s) 0003-0004)
Regarding Claim 19, Pearce/Cova et al./Hamm et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17.
However, Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach
But, Cova et al. in the analogous art of tracking physical shipping assets, teaches the method comprises the steps of determining the one or more products to be at an intermediate stop when the detected location of the one or more monitoring devices is found to be outside a geofence of the origin. (Paragraph(s) 0015, 0023, 0030, and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches the system can define geofences around locations such as ports (e.g., intermediate stops). Cova et al., further, teaches the system can determine that the asset has left a port or other designated area when the location is outside the geofence associated with the designated area)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, by incorporating the teachings of a system that defines a geofence around locations, which the system can determine the asset was left a certain location of Cova et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve notifying users of potential problems with the shipments in advance. (Cova et al.: Paragraph 0006)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cova et al. teaches determining rules and origins for a tag that is associated with a package. However, Pearce, Cova et al., and Hamm et al., do not explicitly teach the intermediate stop for the trip is not defined in the trip automation rule. Pearce, Cova et al., and Hamm et al., do not explicitly teach determine that the asset was stationary within an intermediate location for a certain duration of time.
But, Parruck et al. in the analogous art of shipment, teaches
wherein when intermediate stops for the trip are not defined in the trip automation rule. (Paragraph(s) 0036 and 0040)(Parruck et al. teaches that the system can determine that the shipment has made a route deviation (e.g., intermediate stops for the trip are not defined in the trip automation rule) based on the shipments current location. Parruck et al., further, teaches the wireless tracker determines additional current location(s) and sends the additional current locations and corresponding time for each additional current location, which is triggered based on a route deviation)
stationary for a second duration outside a geofence of the origin, and any of the monitored attributes of the products is found to be beyond a threshold range during the second duration. (Paragraph 0017); and (Claim 12)(Parruck et al. teaches a wireless tracker can determine that the wireless tracker on the asset has remained stationary for amount of time. The system can then determine that the current location of the wireless tracker is the pre-defined shipment location or a new location. The system can determine that the shipment has remained stationary at one of the locations for longer than a time threshold (e.g., duration for which the monitored attributes of the one or more products are found to be beyond the threshold range) then the system will determine that the shipment is at a location when the shipment has remained at a location for longer than a time threshold and if the location is a new location)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, using a system that monitors an asset with a sensor tag of Cova et al., and a system that matches the origin location to an asst, which is used to adjust a route for a future or existing shipment of Hamm et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining a route deviation, which the system will then determine the asset is stationary within an intermediate location for a certain amount of time and determine it is a new location of Parruck et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to reduce shipment mistakes. (Parruck et al.: Paragraph(s) 0003-0004)
Regarding Claim 20, Pearce/Cova et al./Hamm et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17.
However, Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach
wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations.
wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
monitoring real-time location of the one or more monitoring devices upon creation of the trip.
determining and confirming the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location of the one or more monitoring devices is found to be within a geofence of the corresponding location.
But, Cova et al. in the analogous art of tracking physical shipping assets,
wherein the trip automation rule comprises one or more locations comprising the origin, one or more intermediate stops, and a destination associated with the trip for the one or more shipments, and a geofence of a radius around each of the one or more locations. (Paragraph(s) 0015 and 0030-0031)(Cova et al. teaches the system can define a predefined area. The system can track when an asset has entered or left a predefined area. The system can define geofences around important locations along the journey of the asset, such as ports (e.g., intermediate stops) and/or a destination (e.g., destination))
wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
monitoring real-time location of the one or more monitoring devices upon creation of the trip. (Paragraph(s) 0023 and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches when the tag wakes up then the system can receive geofence data identifying boundaries of locations of intertest in the asset journey. The geofence data can include latitude and longitude coordinates. The system can receive a position fix for the asset such as the GPS of the tag. Cova et al., further, teaches the event server of the system can receive the position fix and event information from the asset tag)
determining and confirming the location of the one or more products to be at one of the one or more locations during the created trip when the detected location of the one or more monitoring devices is found to be within a geofence of the corresponding location. (Paragraph(s) 0023 and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches when the tag wakes up then the system can receive geofence data identifying boundaries of locations of intertest in the asset journey. The geofence data can include latitude and longitude coordinates. The system can receive a position fix for the asset such as the GPS of the tag. Cova et al., further, teaches the event server of the system can receive the position fix and event information from the asset tag. The event server can then determine that the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devise based on the monitored location received in the control signal)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, by incorporating the teachings of a system that defines a geofence around locations, which the system can determine the asset was left a certain location of Cova et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve notifying users of potential problems with the shipments in advance. (Cova et al.: Paragraph 0006)
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 2025/0013837 A1)(provisional filed Jul. 5, 2023) in view of Cova et al. (US 2011/0054979 A1) and further in view of Donlan et al. (US 2012/0235791 A1) and further in view of Benjamin et al. (US 2016/0260059 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Pearce, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Pearce, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, upon execution of the instructions, the one or more processors are configured to:
receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment.
detect a location entity of the one or more monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devices.
automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments associated with the activated monitoring devices upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule.
check and validate the trip automation rule upon receiving from the one or more monitoring devices by comparing a program mapping of the products with a program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices.
create the trip and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping of the products and the program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices.
But, Cova et al. in the analogous art of tracking physical shipping assets, teaches
receive a trip automation rule comprising an origin of the trip for the corresponding shipments, and details of the one or more products mapped to the respective origin for the corresponding shipment. (Paragraph(s) 0015, 0023, and 0030)(Cova et al. teaches a tag wakes up periodically to initiate communication with the event server and to send even notifications to the event server. Cova et al., further, teaches that the tag can be programmed to wake up periodically to send even notifications that include an indication event, a location of the assent when the event occurred, and additional details. Cova et al., also, teaches that the asset tag can generate tracking event notifications to the event server, which, includes the current location of the asset, the path that the asset has traveled from the origin location, and tracking events. Cova et al., also teaches that the environmental events can be associated with acceptable ranges for the temperature, humidity, shock, and/or acceleration)
detect a location entity of the one or more monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devices. (Paragraph(s) 0023 and 0035-0038)(Cova et al. teaches when the tag wakes up (e.g., control signal) then the system can receive geofence data identifying boundaries of locations of intertest in the asset journey. The geofence data can include latitude and longitude coordinates. The system can receive a position fix for the asset such as the GPS of the tag. Cova et al., further, teaches the event server of the system can receive the position fix and event information from the asset tag. The event server can then determine that the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest (e.g., detect a location entity of the one or more monitoring devices upon activation of the corresponding monitoring devise based on the monitored location received in the control signal))
automatically create the trip for the one or more shipments associated with the activated monitoring devices upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity as a marked origin for the created trip, by instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule. (Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0033, and 0038-0039)(Cova et al. teaches when a tag is coupled to the asset the tag generates a process event notification indicating the tag is associated with the asset, which can take place at the origin location. The tag and the asset begin their journey, which occurs at a warehouse from where the shipment is being shipped. The location can be associated with a geofence that defines the boundaries of the locations. Cova et al., further, teaches that the event server can determine that the location of the asset is within the boundary of a particular location of interest. The event server determines that the location of the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest by determining whether the coordinates specified by the position fix are inside the boundary associated with one of the locations of interest (e.g., the activated monitoring devices upon a positive matching of the detected location with the origin and correspondingly mark the detected location entity). Cova et al., further teaches the server can generate a notification indicating that the asset has entered the particular location of interest. Cova et al., also, teaches the notification can be a map of the route taken by the asset for a location event or associated between an event and the content of an asset associated with the event. The map can display the event locations (e.g., instantiating a trip object with the marked origin according to the trip automation rule))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, by incorporating the teachings of a system that defines a geofence around locations, which the system can determine the asset was left a certain location. The system will automatically create a trip based on the location information matching of Cova et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve notifying users of potential problems with the shipments in advance. (Cova et al.: Paragraph 0006)
With respect to the above limitations: while Cova et al. teaches receiving origin trip information, which the origin trip information can be used to activate the monitoring device. The system can then create a trip based on positively matching the location of the origin marking the entity origin. However, Pearce and Cova et al., do not explicitly teach checking and validating trip rules upon receiving from the one or more monitoring devices by comparing mapping of the products with program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices. The system will then create and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping.
But, Donlan et al. in the analogous art of tracking shipments, teaches check and validate the trip automation rule upon receiving from the one or more monitoring devices by comparing a program mapping of the products with a program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices. (Paragraph(s) 0010, 0032, 0034, 0037-0038, 0050)(Donlan et al. teaches a container shipment system that uses sensor information to monitor the shipment. The sensor can monitor temperature, pressure, humidity, weight, and acceleration. The sensor information can include serial numbers, sensor serial numbers, and chain of custody serial numbers. The system can verify the specific active monitoring devices and sensors by verifying the correct authentication information is associated with the correct shipping container, which, chain of custody can be established by comparing the location and other sensor information)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce and a system that defines a geofence around locations, which the system can determine the asset was left a certain location. The system will automatically create a trip based on the location information matching of Cova et al., by incorporating the teachings of a system that validates the sensor and monitoring device information to determine if the information is correct of Donlan et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to timely identify an asset that has moved/transferred from a route. (Donlan et al.: Paragraph 0013)
With respect to the above limitations: while Donlan et al. teaches checking and validating trip rules upon receiving from the one or more monitoring devices by comparing mapping of the products with program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices. However, Pearce, Cova et al., and Donlan et al., do not explicitly teach. The system will then create and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping.
But, Benjamin et al. in the analogous art of tracking shipments, teaches create the trip and follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching of the program mapping of the products and the program mapping of the corresponding monitoring devices. (Paragraph(s) 0148-0150 and 0225)(Benjamin et al. teaches the system includes a trip initiation module that determines when a vehicle has started a trip. The module can receive an indication that the vehicle is currently stopped and check the location data and the sensor data to determine when the vehicle is moving. The system can detect the accelerometer vibrations teaches if the accelerometer data indicates movement of the monitoring device then the system can determine if the information is consistent (e.g., follow the trip automation rule upon a positive matching). If the information is consistent then the system will determine the current location of the device and add the location to a set of locations (e.g., create the trip))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system for monitoring and tracking shipment item information using a sensor enclosed in a housing of Pearce, a system that defines a geofence around locations, which the system can determine the asset was left a certain location. The system will automatically create a trip based on the location information matching of Cova et al., and a system that validates the sensor and monitoring device information to determine if the information is correct of Donlan et al., by incorporating the teachings of a system that determines if the sensor information is consistent with the monitoring information, which the system can then add a current location to the set of locations that have been monitored of Benjamin et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to accurately determine the location of the vehicle. (Benjamin et al.: Paragraph 0136)
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Dependent Claim 21 are distinguished from the art.
Cova et al. (US 2011/0054979 A1). Cova et al. teaches a shipping scenario that includes an asset that is within a shipping container. The asset is affixed with a tag tracking device. Cova et al., also, teaches that the tag attached to the asset is used to monitor and report environmental events and location information. Cova et al., also, teaches when the tag wakes up then the system can receive geofence data identifying boundaries of locations of intertest in the asset journey. The geofence data can include latitude and longitude coordinates. The system can receive a position fix for the asset such as the GPS of the tag. Cova et al., further, teaches the event server of the system can receive the position fix and event information from the asset tag. The event server can then determine that the asset is within a boundary of a particular location of interest. Cova et al., further teaches the server can generate a notification indicating that the asset has entered a particular location of interest. Cova et al., also, teaches the notification can be a map of the route taken by the asset for a location event or associated between an event and the content of an asset associated with the event. The map can display the event locations. However, Cova et al., doesn’t explicitly teach a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Hamm et al. (US 2011/0078089 A1). Hamm et al. teaches one or more sensor devices that are set up based on the requirements of a shipper. The sensor devices may be activated and associated with the items being shipped. The sensors can be attached to the packaging associated with the item and associated with a tracking number. The sensor device can also include sensors to detect one or more locations, which the data will be transmitted to a tracking center. The tracking center can then query the database and aggregated the information, which can then determine possible locations or zones along the shipment route that may adversely affect the shipment. The system can then adjust the route for future or existing shipments such as routing the shipment though Memphis to Los Angeles through Minneapolis. Hamm et al., also, teaches that based on the data sent by the sensor device the system can match the origin and destination of the current shipments. However, Hamm et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Gray et al. (US 11,748,687 B2). Gray et al. teaches the item may pack sensors and the item into a box. The sensors can monitor the event data such as the environmental condition. The environmental conditions can include pressure and chemical exposure such as oxygen and/or some other non-inert gas. However, Gray et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Khandekar et al. (US 2022/0165161 A1). Khandekar et al. teaches after a vehicle moves outside the geofence 110A of the trip starting location 108 then the vehicle can be said to be in-transit or can be said to be on-the-way. However, Khandekar et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Goodman et al. (US 2016/0042317 A1). Goodman et al. teaches a user can create a shipping profile, which can include required temperature ranges of environmental conditions for the shipment. Goodman et al., further teaches that the system will ask during the enrollment/registration process for the shipper’s/customer’s name, company name, entity name, organization name, and/or aliases. The shipper/customer can also input other biographic and/or geographic information into the system. The biographic information can include a user identifier and a security access identifier such as a username or password. The security access identifier can be received as input in a form of a character string, fingerprint scan, retinal scan, or other identification verification methods. The system will use to create or update the shipper’s/customer’s profile based on a validation of the biographic and/or geographic information. However, Goodman et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Parruck et al. (US 2016/0371643 A1). Parruck et al. teaches that the system can determine that the shipment has made a route deviation based on the shipments current, destination, and/or intermediate locations. Parruck et al., further, teaches the wireless tracker determines additional current location and sends the additional current locations and corresponding time for each additional current location, which is triggered based on a route deviation. Parruck et al., also, teaches a wireless tracker can determine that the wireless tracker on the asset has remained stationary for amount of time. The system can then determine that the current, destination, and/or intermediate location of the wireless tracker is the pre-defined shipment location or a new location. The system can determine that the shipment has remained stationary at one of the locations for longer than a time threshold then the system will determine that the shipment is at a location when the shipment has remained at a location for longer than a time threshold and if the location is a new location. However, Parruck et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Modica et al. (US 2023/0196265 A1). Modica et al. teaches that the data can be collected which is used to build a full tracking update. Each tracking update can contain one or more status. Modica et al., further, teaches the system can fill in gaps of the collected information by leveraging known information about the shipment, such as origin and destination information if the location information for the tracking update is not available. Modica et al., further, teaches that the system can provide status description information such as the statuses that correspond to various stages of the shipment such as the shipment arrived at origin terminal. However, Modica et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
“Internet of Things enabled real time cold chain monitoring in a container port,” by Ahmet Yunus Cil, Dini Abdurahman, and Ibrahim Cil, Volume 7, artice number 9, May 05, 2022, (hereinafter Internet). Internet teaches a cold chain transport and storage that uses sensors to monitor humidity and temperature. The sensors are housed in a protective housing. However, Internet, doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Harring et al. (US 9,501,920 B2). Harring et al. teaches a device report that is received to determine if a shipment is activated. If the associated shipment is active then the system will determine the coordinates of the cargo container is within a pick geozone. If the cargo is within a pickup geozone then the shipment will be activated and an activation message is associated with the shipment. However, Harring et al., doesn’t explicitly teach if a trip is already created for one of the shipments and upon activation of the monitoring device then creating a trip for the shipments in case the trip is not created and the detected location entity of the activated monitoring device matches with the origin.
Examiner, respectfully, notes that Dependent Claim(s) 23-33 are novel/non-obviousness based on their dependency from Dependent Claim 21
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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628