DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 26 May 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 16, 19, 21, 23-25, and 28-33 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Claims 17-18, 20, 22, 26-27, and 34-35 are original / previously presented.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection of the drawings, the Applicant has successfully amended the drawings, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous objection of claims 19 and 23, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 21 and 23-28, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 29-33, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant amends the claims in a manner considered to address any lack of clarity, and consequently Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections be withdrawn” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Amendments to the claims still result in terms that lack of antecedent basis and result in indefinite claims because it is unclear which previous terms they may (or may not) be referring to since the claim language does not match. These include: the claim 29 recitation of "the expected CO2-balance" in lines 1-2; the claim 30 recitation of "the CO2-balance of the transport containers" in line 6; the claim 31 recitation of "the expected CO2-balance" in lines 4-5; the claim 32 recitation of "the CO2-balance of the transport containers" in line 8; and the claim 33 recitation of "the expected CO2-balance" in line 3. Each of these instances include language where it is unclear if they are referencing terms in a parent claim that uses different language or is introducing a new distinct element. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 16-35, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Applicant submits that the output of a warning provides a concrete action which avoids any abstractness elsewhere in the claim. In particular, Applicant submits that the amended claim satisfies prong one of the subject matter eligibility test by reciting a concrete action and physical world output, namely a warning. Applicant therefore considers that the amended claim is not directed to an abstract idea, and/or includes additional method steps beyond any abstract idea so that the claim is directed to significantly more than any abstract idea contained therein” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, the newly amended limitation “outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit” is part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, because it represents certain methods of organizing human activities as the subgroupings of managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions. Second, a warning is not a concrete physical action that would prevent the claim from reciting a judicial exception. The fact that this limitation is implemented on a computer according to the preamble of the claim (e.g. the computer-implemented method comprising…) does not preclude the claim from reciting the judicial exception, since this is no more than ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer which does not make a claim eligible. Also, a human / person could verbally output a warning based on the claimed conditions. Third, the claim does not include method steps that go beyond the abstract idea that provide significantly more, since the additional elements (1) amount to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using a generic computer, and (2) add high-level extra-solution activities such as record keeping and transmitting / outputting data that amount to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity which is not significantly more, per MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g). In combination with the claim limitations, the additional elements do no more together than they do individually, and still do not provide significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 33, the Applicant has successfully amended the claim, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 16-32, 34-35, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper because “Holbrook would never attempt to update the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the container of a shipment during transit, as in step g) of claim 16. In Holbrook, the shipment has already been made and the method of Holbrook would apply the acquired knowledge only to future shipments. Therefore, Applicant submits that the motivation to combine the references is faulty. In particular, the motivation provided in the Office Action, namely ‘detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects’ because ‘improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable’ (Office Action; pages 22 and 23, citing Williams at ¶[0001], ¶[0003]), is not a proper motivation to modify Holbrook, since Holbrook is only concerned with selecting packaging before a shipment. Therefore, Applicant submits that the combination of Holbrook and Williams is not proper and the rejection of claim 16 based on the combination should be withdrawn” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Williams and Holbrook are analogous inventions in the field of shipping products, and there is motivation found in Williams of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). Second, the rationale of combining features of Williams in the system of Holbrook to establish obviousness is also supported by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). For example, the feature of “g) updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account “ is a known element as taught in Williams (¶[0024], ¶[0036], ¶[0074-76], ¶[0087]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, there is both supported motivation to combine Holbrook and Williams, and rationale to combine Holbrook and Williams. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Priority
This application 19/152,997 filed on 1 August 2025 is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2024/050429, which claims priority to European patent application EP23020059.4 filed on 1 February 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1 August 2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 26 May 2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29:
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the expected CO2-balance" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 30-31:
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the CO2-balance of the transport containers" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the dependent claim 31. Note that claim 26 recites wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance, however claim 30 does not depended from claim 26.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the expected CO2-balance" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 32-33:
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the CO2-balance of the transport containers" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the dependent claim 33. Note that claim 26 recites wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance, however claim 32 does not depended from claim 26.
Claim 33:
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the expected CO2-balance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16-35:
Step 1:
Claims 16-33 recite a method; claim 34 recites a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 35 recites a computer program product. The claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim(s) 16-35 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 16 recites providing route sections of at least one transport route, wherein at least one means of transport is assigned to each of the route sections; providing route section-specific estimated data comprising estimated ambient temperature data and estimated transport duration data; providing container-specific data comprising thermodynamic key figures; creating at least one combination of route sections for at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination; calculating… an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data, wherein the expected progression of the internal temperature is within a predefined temperature range; updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account; and h) outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of providing route sections of at least one transport route, wherein at least one means of transport is assigned to each of the route sections; providing route section-specific estimated data comprising estimated ambient temperature data and estimated transport duration data; providing container-specific data comprising thermodynamic key figures; creating at least one combination of route sections for at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination; calculating… an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data, wherein the expected progression of the internal temperature is within a predefined temperature range; updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account; and outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes providing route sections…, providing route section-specific estimated data…, providing container specific data…, creating at least one combination of route sections…, calculating an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container…, updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature for a remaining part of the transport route…, outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit; and following rules or instructions includes providing route sections…, providing route section-specific estimated data…, providing container specific data…, creating at least one combination of route sections…, calculating an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container…, updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature for a remaining part of the transport route, outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit. The presence of generic computer components such as a computer (e.g. a computer-implemented method) does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitation calculating… an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data, wherein the expected progression of the internal temperature is within a predefined temperature range recites a mathematical calculation that is used to calculate an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Note that in this claim, the calculating step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites a mathematical calculating a variable from two other variables. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 16-35 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a ‘computer-implemented method’) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of displaying and its step of displaying an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting results of the calculating step), and amounts to mere outputting data / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (presenting results). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of recording and its step of recording route section-specific actual data during transport comprising actual ambient temperature data and actual transport duration data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of recording data for subsequent updating), and amounts to mere data gathering / electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the recording, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding recording more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (documenting results). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of outputting a warning (e.g. outputting a warning) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting / transmitting data associated with calculation), and also amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the outputting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding outputting more than using computers as a tool and in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to output data). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (computer); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (outputting data / transmitting data, data gathering / electronic record keeping). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform providing route sections…, providing route section-specific estimated data…, providing container specific data…, creating at least one combination of route sections…, calculating an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container…, updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature for a remaining part of the transport route, outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined limit amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the displaying are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data of the calculating), and amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer-implemented method) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0022], ¶[0037] describing the additional element of displaying on a screen at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the recording are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of recording data for subsequent updating), and amounts to mere data gathering / electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer-implemented method) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these recording steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification related arts (background) ¶[0006] describing the additional element of temperature sensors recording internal and ambient temperatures, and ¶[0018] describing recording temperatures at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the outputting a warning are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data associated with the calculating), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data / outputting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer implemented method) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these outputting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0022], ¶[0024] describing the element of issuing a warning message on a screen regarding an expected excursion from the temperature range at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering, electronic record keeping, and outputting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. what is expected temperature progression of a transport based on route-specific data and actual data), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a transport container itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claim 16, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 17-35. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 17: The limitation comparing the expected progression of the internal temperature for the remaining part of the transport route with the predefined temperature range, and identifying and indicating an expected excursion from the temperature range is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18: The limitation wherein, at an expected excursion from the temperature range, changes in the transport are proposed is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19: The limitation wherein the changes in the transport comprise one of a change in the transport route, the route sections, the means of transport, and a time of transport merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20: The limitation updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a previous part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21: First, the limitation measuring the actual progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport is an additional element (extra-solution data gathering) recited at a high level of detail that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The measuring step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). Second, the limitations of comparing the updated, calculated progression of the internal temperature for the previous part of the transport route with the actual progression and identifying a deviation, wherein step g) is performed with additional consideration of the deviation is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22: The limitation wherein the deviation is used to correct the container-specific data is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23: First, the limitation wherein: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises at least one of: an estimated CO2-balance of the means of transport, and in that the container-specific data comprises a CO2-balance of the transport container merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation in step e) an expected CO2-balance for the combination of route sections is additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated CO2-balance of the means of transport, and the CO2-balance of the transport container is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 24: First, the limitation wherein: at least one of: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises estimated costs of the means of transport, and that the container-specific data comprises costs of the transport container merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation in step e) expected costs for the combination of route sections are additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated costs of the means of transport, and the costs of the transport container is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25: First, the limitation wherein the container-specific data comprises thermodynamic key figures merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation in that, in step e), expected progressions of the internal temperature and one of a plurality of container types is selected for transport is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 26: The limitation wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 27: The limitation wherein in step e) expected costs are calculated for each of the plurality of container types is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 28: The limitations wherein in step d) a plurality of combinations of route sections are created for the at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination, and in step e) the expected progression of the internal temperature and one of the combinations is selected for transport are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 29: The limitation wherein in step e) the expected CO2-balance is calculated for each of the plurality of combinations of route sections is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 30: The limitations wherein: the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in a form of an estimated temperature range and an estimated duration range, and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the expected costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 31: The limitation wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, by varying the estimated temperature data within the temperature range and by varying the estimated transport duration within a time duration range, a dispersion of the expected progression of the internal temperature and the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32: The limitations wherein: the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in the form of a probability distribution of the estimated temperature range and the estimated duration range; at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 33: The limitation wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, a probability distribution of the expected progression of the internal temperature and the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated from the probability distributions of the temperature and the transport duration is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34: The limitation A data processing system comprising means for carrying out the method represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of a data processing system comprising means for carrying out the method in these steps represents a general computer / computer component recited at a high level of generality that amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a computer, which does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0036] describing the additional element of the data processing system formed by a commercially available data processing device, wherein a central computer unit is provided to carry out the method such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 35: The limitation A computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of a computer program product, program, computer in these steps represents a general computer / computer component recited at a high level of generality that amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a computer, which does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0038] describing the additional element of a computer program product with instructions that when executed cause the computer to execute the method such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claim 16, and the dependent claims 17-35 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 16-35 are ineligible.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 35:
Claims 35 is directed to a computer program product. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related non-statutory subject matter.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 11,150,146 B1 to Holbrook et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al.
Claim 16:
Holbrook, as shown, teaches the following:
A computer-implemented method for planning and monitoring a cold chain during transport of temperature-sensitive goods in a temperature-controlled transport container from a starting point to a destination, the computer-implemented method comprising
a) providing route sections of at least one transport route (Holbrook Fig 3A-3B, col 1 ln 60 through col 2 ln 13 details stages of a transit route), wherein at least one means of transport is assigned to each of the route sections (Holbrook col 1 ln 60 through col 2 ln 13 details each stage of the transit routes may use various means of transportation systems);
b) providing route section-specific estimated data comprising estimated ambient temperature data and estimated transport duration data (Holbrook Fig 3A-3B, col 2 ln 13-22 details expected temperature profiles and durations of each stage of a transit route);
c) providing container-specific data comprising thermodynamic key figures (Holbrook Fig 5, col 15 ln 49 through col 16 ln 9, col 24 ln 30-43 details selecting a particular package configuration based on thermodynamic analysis, ensuring that product storage requirements are met by the selected package including materials and highest probability not to deviate outside a temperature range with upper and lower limits);
d) creating at least one combination of route sections for at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination (Holbrook Fig 3A-3B, Fig 6, col 1 ln 60-67 details receiving an origin and destination for a shipment and calculating one or more transit routes);
e) calculating and displaying an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data (Holbrook col 2 ln 13-23 and 45-57, col 3 ln 49-61 details determining the expected temperature information and duration at each state of transit to which the cold-chain shipment will be exposed and displaying the information to the user (e.g. temperature profiles indicating fluctuations in temperature at each state of the each transit route, duration of time in which the package is expected to be at each state, thermodynamic analysis on package configurations)), wherein the expected progression of the internal temperature is within a predefined temperature range (Holbrook col 2 ln 23-45 details identifying the probability of risk of the shipped product’s temperature falling outside of a desired or mandatory temperature range and whether the combination of transit route possibility and package configuration is suitable);
With respect to the following:
f) recording route section-specific actual data during transport comprising actual ambient temperature data and actual transport duration data;
Holbrook, as shown in col 12 ln 38-62 details collecting and recording routing state data regarding weather and durations of calibration shipments, but does not explicitly state recording route section-specific actual data during transport. However, Williams teaches this limitation receiving package sensor data (e.g. temperature, pressure, location, and/or other environmental parameters), and receiving scan data with time-stamped location data (i.e. durations) when the package arrives at locations of the journey, and updating this information journey database with the sensor data and scan data (Williams Fig 5, ¶[0029], ¶[0041], ¶[0047], ¶[0074-75], ¶[0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include recording route section-specific actual data during transport comprising actual ambient temperature data and actual transport duration data as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook, with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include recording route section-specific actual data during transport comprising actual ambient temperature data and actual transport duration data as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Williams (of Holbrook in view of Williams) also teaches the following:
g) updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account (Williams ¶[0024], ¶[0036], ¶[0074-76], ¶[0087] details using the recently collected sensor data in combination with historical data to detect alert conditions that predict problems based on patterns and trends (e.g. based on the rate at which the package temperature is increasing) for the current journey); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Holbrook (in view of Williams) also teaches the following:
h) outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit (Holbrook col 2 ln 23-44 details calculating the probability or risk of the shipped product’s temperature falling outside of a desired or mandatory temperature range (i.e. the occurrence of an excursion), and if there are no suitable combination of transit route probabilities (i.e. probabilities greater than a limit) in conjunction with the risk of an excursion occurring for each transit route and predetermined requirements then such an indication may be displayed, i.e. outputting a warning).
Claim 17:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Williams also teaches the following:
comparing the expected progression of the internal temperature for the remaining part of the transport route with the predefined temperature range, and identifying and indicating an expected excursion from the temperature range (Williams Fig 4-5, ¶[0074-75], ¶[0079-80] details analyzing collected sensor temperature and recognizing patterns and trends that match a pattern for the alert condition based on data range limits and damage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing the expected progression of the internal temperature for the remaining part of the transport route with the predefined temperature range, and identifying and indicating an expected excursion from the temperature range as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing the expected progression of the internal temperature for the remaining part of the transport route with the predefined temperature range, and identifying and indicating an expected excursion from the temperature range as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 18:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 17. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein, at an expected excursion from the temperature range, changes in the transport are proposed. (Williams Fig 8, Fig 11, ¶[0086], ¶[0091] details when the alert condition is raised, detailed information regarding the alert condition and proposed alternative options may be displayed, alternative options proposed include alternative routes plotted on a map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, at an expected excursion from the temperature range, changes in the transport are proposed as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, at an expected excursion from the temperature range, changes in the transport are proposed as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 18. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the changes in the transport comprise one of a change in the transport route, the route sections, the means of transport, and a time of transport (Williams Fig 10-11, ¶[0082], ¶[0090-91] details proposing alternate route changes beside the current route on a map, and details proposing journey modifications to change the shipping speed (e.g. one day, two day) when the server detects a delay in the journey that may likely damage the shipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the changes in the transport comprise one of a change in the transport route, the route sections, the means of transport, and a time of transport as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the changes in the transport comprise one of a change in the transport route, the route sections, the means of transport, and a time of transport as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 20:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Williams also teaches the following:
updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a previous part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account (Williams Fig 4, ¶[0056-57], ¶[0074], ¶[0076] details back-filling temperature data for earlier periods in the timeline with the actual journey data collected (e.g. after airplane mode), and also continuously updating the data models used for alert conditions based on the received journey data, when the data is received).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a previous part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a previous part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 21:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Williams also teaches the following:
measuring the actual progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, and comparing the updated, calculated progression of the internal temperature for the previous part of the transport route with the actual progression and identifying a deviation (Williams ¶[0047], ¶[0074-76], ¶[0079-80] details measuring the temperature with sensors, and analyzing the collected sensor data to identify trends and patterns that cause an alert condition (i.e. deviation) such as the rate at which the package temperature is increasing to prevent the temperature from exceeding an upper temperature limit),
wherein step g) is performed with additional consideration of the deviation (Williams ¶[0057], ¶[0075] details performing the statistical analysis on the package temperature using both the recently collected temperature data and the historical data for data trending and recognizing a new pattern, and updating previous period data with actual data when it is available, e.g. after airplane mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include measuring the actual progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, and comparing the updated, calculated progression of the internal temperature for the previous part of the transport route with the actual progression and identifying a deviation; wherein step g) is performed with additional consideration of the corrected container-specific data as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include measuring the actual progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, and comparing the updated, calculated progression of the internal temperature for the previous part of the transport route with the actual progression and identifying a deviation; wherein step g) is performed with additional consideration of the corrected container-specific data as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 22:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 21. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein the deviation is used to correct the container-specific data (Williams ¶[0037], ¶[0063], ¶[0076] details updating the data models, stored statistical data and third party data based on the received data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the deviation is used to correct the container-specific data as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the deviation is used to correct the container-specific data as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 24:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Williams also teaches the following:
wherein: at least one of:
the route section-specific estimated data further comprises estimated costs of the means of transport (Williams ¶[0087-88] details predicting the cost associated with a journey and route alternatives, and the amount of money lost due to delay and damage compared to the price of changing carriers / transportation speeds / transportation methods), and
that the container-specific data comprises costs of the transport container (Williams ¶[0087-88] details predicting the cost associated with a journey and route alternatives, and the amount of money lost due to delay and damage compared to the price of changing carriers / transportation speeds / transportation methods); and
in step e) expected costs for the combination of route sections are additionally calculated from at least one of:
the estimated costs of the means of transport, and the costs of the transport container (Williams ¶[0087-88] details predicting the cost associated with a journey and route alternatives, and the amount of money lost due to delay and damage compared to the price of changing carriers / transportation speeds / transportation methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: at least one of: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises estimated costs of the means of transport, and that the container-specific data comprises costs of the transport container; and in step e) expected costs for the combination of route sections are additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated costs of the respective means of transport, and the costs of the transport container as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: at least one of: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises estimated costs of the means of transport, and that the container-specific data comprises costs of the transport container; and in step e) expected costs for the combination of route sections are additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated costs of the respective means of transport, and the costs of the transport container as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 25:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 24. Holbrook also teaches the following:
wherein the container-specific data comprises thermodynamic key figures and in that, in step e), expected progressions of the internal temperature and one of a plurality of container types is selected for transport (Holbrook Fig 5, col 15 ln 49 through col 16 ln 9, col 24 ln 30-43 details selecting a particular package configuration based on thermodynamic analysis, ensuring that product storage requirements are met by the selected package including materials and highest probability not to deviate outside a temperature range with upper and lower limits).
Claim 27:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 25. Holbrook also teaches the following:
wherein in step e) expected costs are calculated for each of the plurality of container types (Holbrook col 2 ln 35-44, col 14 ln 55-63, col 16 ln 6-48 details using a combination of transit route probabilities in conjunction with the risk of an excursion occurring for each transit route and/or other predetermined requirements (e.g. cost) to determine the best available package configuration and displaying this information to a user, and identifying the lowest cost packing option among different shipping options that still meets product storage requirements).
Claim 28:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Holbrook also teaches the following:
wherein in step d) a plurality of combinations of route sections are created for the at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination, and in step e) the expected progression of the internal temperature and one of the combinations is selected for transport (Holbrook col 3 ln 40-61, col 6 ln 51-56, col 16 ln 6-15 details facilitating the selection of a particular shipping option and/or package configuration among different shipping options for one or more transit routes from the origin to the destination, with temperature profiles for each of the different routes and stages along various routes).
Claim 30:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 27. Williams also teaches the following:
the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in a form of an estimated temperature range and an estimated duration range, respectively (Williams ¶[0067], ¶[0079-80] details preprogramming data range limits, including weather forecast temperatures with upper and lower limits, and time limits regarding a period of time);
at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport (Williams ¶[0025], claim 5 details alternative shipping speeds or transportation modes are recommended, i.e. estimated ranged for means of transport); and
at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the expected costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport (Williams ¶[0025], claim 5 details alternative shipping speeds or transportation modes are recommended, i.e. estimated ranges for means of transport).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in a form of an estimated temperature range and an estimated duration range, respectively; and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the expected costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport as taught by Williams with the teachings of Holbrook (in view of Williams), with the motivation of “detecting and reacting to monitored and contextual information associated with shipped objects” because “improvements in techniques for managing shipped objects are desirable” (Williams ¶[0001], ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in a form of an estimated temperature range and an estimated duration range respectively; and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and at least one of the following are also in a form of estimated ranges: the expected costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport as taught by Williams in the system of Holbrook (in view of Williams), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 34:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Holbrook also teaches the following:
A data processing system comprising means for carrying out the method according to claim 16 (Holbrook Fig 1, col 4 ln 16-26, col 25 ln 57-67 details implementation with one or more computer components as part of a computer network architecture, computers).
Claim 35:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Holbrook also teaches the following:
A computer program product comprising instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 16 (Holbrook col 4 ln 16-26, col 7 ln 46-55, col 14 ln 27-45 details back-end components include programs, algorithms, code, and applications that are executed via communication with front end computer devices).
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 11,150,146 B1 to Holbrook et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al., as applied to claims 16 and 30 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0141758 A1 to Escama Sanchez (hereinafter Sanchez).
Claim 23:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. Holbrook does not explicitly state, but Sanchez teaches the following:
wherein: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises at least one of:
an estimated CO2-balance of the means of transport (Sanchez ¶[0015], ¶[0027-28], claim 19 details calculating an amount of CO2 released traveling along points on a route), and
in that the container-specific data comprises a CO2-balance of the transport container; and
in step e) an expected CO2-balance for the combination of route sections is additionally calculated from at least one of:
the estimated CO2-balance of the respective means of transport (Sanchez ¶[0015], ¶[0027-28], claim 19 details calculating the amount of CO2 released on the commercial routes, determined from the gas emissions factor (F), average consumption (CM), and distance between the points of the route (E), i.e. route sections), and
the CO2-balance of the transport container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises at least one of: an estimated CO2-balance of the means of transport; and in step e) an expected CO2-balance for the combination of route sections is additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated CO2-balance of the respective means of transport as taught by Sanchez with the teachings of Holbrook in view of Williams, with the motivation “to create a preventive, predictive and cost-optimising tool, regarding economic aspects, time, and the environment; that is, it provides the best information possible so that the final manager or client may make the most appropriate decision for the benefit of his company” (Sanchez ¶[0025], ¶[0020]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: the route section-specific estimated data further comprises at least one of: an estimated CO2-balance of the means of transport; and in step e) an expected CO2-balance for the combination of route sections is additionally calculated from at least one of: the estimated CO2-balance of the respective means of transport as taught by Sanchez in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 31:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 30. With respect to the following:
wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, by varying the estimated temperature data within the temperature range and by varying the estimated transport duration within a time duration range, a dispersion of the expected progression of the internal temperature and the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated.
Holbrook, as shown in Fig 4, col 2 ln 29-44, col 19 ln 18-56 details the thermodynamic analysis includes the anticipated product temperature profile (410) how it varies based on the route stage temperature profiles and their durations (402) and cost; but does not explicitly state for the at least one combination of route sections the CO2 balance is calculated. However, Sanchez teaches this remaining limitation, details calculating an amount of CO2 released traveling along points on a route, which is related to temperature control and estimates of economic cost and time (Sanchez ¶[0015], ¶[0027-28], ¶[0137-141], claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, by varying the estimated temperature data within the temperature range and by varying the estimated transport duration within a time duration range… the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated as taught by Sanchez with the teachings of Holbrook in view of Williams, with the motivation “to create a preventive, predictive and cost-optimising tool, regarding economic aspects, time, and the environment; that is, it provides the best information possible so that the final manager or client may make the most appropriate decision for the benefit of his company” (Sanchez ¶[0025], ¶[0020]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, by varying the estimated temperature data within the temperature range and by varying the estimated transport duration within a time duration range… the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated as taught by Sanchez in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 11,150,146 B1 to Holbrook et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al., as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2019/0114714 A1 to Jones et al.
Claim 26:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 25. Holbrook does not explicitly state, but Jones teaches the following:
wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance (Jones ¶[0015-16], ¶[0073], ¶[0055], ¶[0115], ¶[0206] details sensing and recording environmental attributes of the cargo container including levels of CO2 / carbon dioxide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance as taught by Jones with the teachings of Holbrook in view of Williams, with the motivation to “minimize and/or recoup quality shortfall (inherent vice) of cargo (land, marine, and air), especially environmentally sensitive cargo” (Jones ¶[0011]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the container-specific data further comprises a CO2-balance as taught by Jones in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 11,150,146 B1 to Holbrook et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al. in view of US patent application publication 2019/0114714 A1 to Jones et al., as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0141758 A1 to Escama Sanchez (hereinafter Sanchez).
Claim 29:
Holbrook in view of Williams in view of Jones, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 26. Holbrook does not explicitly state, but Sanchez teaches the following:
wherein in step e) the expected CO2-balance is calculated for each of the plurality of combinations of route sections (Sanchez ¶[0015], ¶[0027-28], claim 19 details calculating the amount of CO2 released on the commercial routes, determined from the gas emissions factor (F), average consumption (CM), and distance between the points of the route (E), i.e. route sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in step e) the expected CO2-balance is calculated for each of the plurality of combinations of route sections as taught by Sanchez with the teachings of Holbrook in view of Williams in view of Jones, with the motivation “to create a preventive, predictive and cost-optimising tool, regarding economic aspects, time, and the environment; that is, it provides the best information possible so that the final manager or client may make the most appropriate decision for the benefit of his company” (Sanchez ¶[0025], ¶[0020]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein in step e) the expected CO2-balance is calculated for each of the plurality of combinations of route sections as taught by Sanchez in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams in view of Jones, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publication 11,150,146 B1 to Holbrook et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0046361 A1 to Williams et al., as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0279194 A1 to Piccolella et al.
Claim 32:
Holbrook in view of Williams, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 27. With respect to the following:
wherein: the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in the form of a probability distribution of the estimated temperature range and the estimated duration range;
Holbrook, as shown in col 3 ln 49-6, col 14 ln 46-63, col 15 ln 58-67 details determining the probability whether or not the product will stay within the acceptable temperature range (i.e. the estimated ambient temperature data is in the form of a probability distribution of the estimated temperature range), and the duration of time in which the package is expected in each stage of the transit route, but does not explicitly state that the estimated transport duration data is in the form of a probability distribution of estimated duration range. However, Piccolella teaches this remaining feature, identifying an estimated time of arrival from a first location to a second location that is within a specified range (i.e. an estimated duration range), and an uncertainty percentage that is associated with the ETA whether it will be within the specified range (Piccolella ¶[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: the estimated transport duration data is in the form of a probability distribution of estimated duration range as taught by Piccolella with the teachings of Holbrook in view of Williams, with the motivation to reduce “poor experience on the part of transportation requestors” and solve the problem that “it may be difficult to pinpoint a provider ETA given all of the many factors that can introduce uncertainty as to when exactly the provider will arrive” (Piccolella ¶[0002], ¶[0020]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein: the estimated transport duration data is in the form of a probability distribution of estimated duration range as taught by Piccolella in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Piccolella (of Holbrook in view of Williams in view of Piccolella) also teaches the following:
at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport (Piccolella Fig 6, ¶[0031] details various probabilities associated with the means of transport / container-specific data, e.g. probability whether the location data is accurate); and
at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport (Piccolella Fig 6, ¶[0031] details various probabilities associated with the means of transport, e.g. probability whether the location data is accurate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport as taught by Piccolella in the system of Holbrook in view of Williams (in view of Piccolella), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claim 33 is not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the features as recited in claim 33 (including all claimed features in the claims which claim 33 is dependent on). The following reference(s) teach additional individual features of the limitations of claims 33, however the Examiner has determined it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine these references in combination with the previously applied references (e.g. claims 32: Holbrook in view of Williams in view of Piccolella) to render claim 33 obvious.
Claim 33:
a) providing route sections of at least one transport route, wherein at least one means of transport is assigned to each of the route sections;
b) providing route section-specific estimated data comprising estimated ambient temperature data and estimated transport duration data;
c) providing container-specific data comprising thermodynamic key figures;
d) creating at least one combination of route sections for at least one transport route from the starting point to the destination;
e) calculating and displaying an expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container for the at least one combination of route sections from the route section-specific estimated data and the container-specific data, wherein the expected progression of the internal temperature is within a predefined temperature range;
f) recording route section-specific actual data during transport comprising actual ambient temperature data and actual transport duration data;
g) updating the calculation of the expected progression of the internal temperature of the transport container, during transport, for a remaining part of the transport route, taking the route section-specific actual data into account; and
h) outputting a warning if a probability of leaving the predefined temperature range is greater than a predefined upper limit;
wherein: at least one of:
the route section-specific estimated data further comprises estimated costs of the means of transport, and
that the container-specific data comprises costs of the transport container; and
in step e) expected costs for the combination of route sections are additionally calculated from at least one of:
the estimated costs of the means of transport, and the costs of the transport container;
wherein the container-specific data comprises thermodynamic key figures and in that, in step e), expected progressions of the internal temperature and one of a plurality of container types is selected for transport;
wherein in step e) expected costs are calculated for each of the plurality of container types;
wherein: the estimated ambient temperature data and the estimated transport duration data are each in the form of a probability distribution of the estimated temperature range and the estimated duration range;
at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the container-specific data, the CO2-balance of the transport containers, and the means of transport; and
at least one of the following are also in the form of a probability distribution: the costs of the transport containers, and the means of transport;
wherein in step e), for the at least one combination of route sections, a probability distribution of the expected progression of the internal temperature and the expected CO2-balance and the expected costs for the at least one combination, is calculated from the probability distributions of the temperature and the transport duration.
The prior art of Holbrook (US 2015/0046361 A1) details calculating a probability of whether a specific package configuration for a transit route across one or more stages will maintain a temperature within a temperature range via a particular transit route and the duration of time in which the package is expected to be at each stage of the route, and meet any other predetermined requirements, e.g. cost (Holbrook Fig 6, col 2 ln 13-44, col 3 ln 49-61, col 14 ln 46-63).
The prior art of Piccolella (US 2020/0279194 A1) details obtaining probability distribution of the expected transport time (Piccolella ¶[0030]).
The prior art of Jayathirtha et al. (US 2023/0237404 A1) details using a plurality of impact models including probability of occurrence to assess assets and/or asset events related to a deviation, where impact may include cost of service analysis and criticality of occupant experience (e.g. air quality criteria, carbon dioxide criteria, temperature criteria) (Jayathirtha ¶[0036]).
The prior art of Escama Sanchez (US 2020/0141758 A1) details calculating expected amounts of CO2 and the economic cost related to the time in executing the specific service on the commercial routes, considering the weather conditions (Sanchez ¶[0015], ¶[0027-28]).
The prior art of Afreen et al. “An IoT-Based Real-Time Intelligent Monitoring and Notification System of Cold Storage” (IEEE Access vol 9, 2021) details real time monitoring of temperature and gas in cold storage and notifies the personnel on exceeding dangerous limits of these parameters; classifying the status of commodities into three classes of good, unsatisfactory, or alarming based on probability outputs in a neural network model with temperature and CO2 as input parameters (Afreen Abstract, pg. 38243-38244 including Figure 5).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2021/0103885 A1 to Reinhardt details methods and systems for prescription drug shipping selection.
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 TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights