DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over parent claims 1, 11, 14 and 20 of Stiegler et al., US 12,380,481.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected independent claims achieve a non-distinct outcome using the same computing structures.
Rejected claim 21 (representing claims 32 and 40)
Parent claim 11 (representing claims 1, 14 and 20)
(New) A method for determining item dimensions accuracy, the method comprising:
A method for determining an accuracy metric of dimensions data for an item, the method comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, stored dimensions data for a physical item;
receiving, by a computing system, dimensions data for an item;
identifying, by the computing system, a category associated with the physical item;
identifying a category associated with the item;
determining, by the computing system, whether the dimensions data for the item is within a predetermined threshold range of dimensions data for the category associated with the physical item,
the predetermined threshold range of dimensions being based on dimensions data for a plurality of other items associated with the category; and
determining whether the dimensions data for the item is within a predetermined threshold range of dimensions data for other items in the category associated with the item;
retrieving, by the computing system and from a data store, one or more machine learning models that were trained, using a training dataset of dimensions data for other items and positive dimensions accuracy determinations for the other items, to determine accuracy of the dimensions data for the item relative to similar items in a same category of items;
identifying, by the computing system and based on determining that the dimensions data for the physical item is not within the predetermined threshold range, the physical item as an outlier in the category associated with the physical item;
based on determining that the dimensions data for the item is not within the predetermined threshold range, the item as an outlier in the category associated with the item;
in response to identifying the physical item as an outlier in the category, determining, by the computing system, whether the dimensions data for the physical item is correct.
generating, by the computing system, output indicating the accuracy metric of the dimensions data for the item.
generating, by the computing system, output indicating the outlier status for the physical item.
generating, by the computing system, output indicating the accuracy metric of the dimensions data for the item.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 21 is directed to a process. Analysis of claim 21 applies to analysis of claims 22-40.
Step 2A (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 21 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 21 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
See Analysis.
Analysis
In Claim 21:
(New) A method for determining item dimensions accuracy, the method comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, stored dimensions data for a physical item;
identifying, by the computing system, a category associated with the physical item;
determining, by the computing system, whether the dimensions data for the item is within a predetermined threshold range of dimensions data for the category associated with the physical item, the predetermined threshold range of dimensions being based on dimensions data for a plurality of other items associated with the category; and
identifying, by the computing system and based on determining that the dimensions data for the physical item is not within the predetermined threshold range, the physical item as an outlier in the category associated with the physical item;
in response to identifying the physical item as an outlier in the category, determining, by the computing system, whether the dimensions data for the physical item is correct;
generating, by the computing system, output indicating the outlier status for the physical item.
For Step 2A (first prong), claim 21 as a whole executes processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to abstract ideas related to commercial interactions and therefore fall under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
For Step 2A (second prong) claim 21 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements.
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
Claim 21 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. Courts have routinely found conventional computer processing functions (e.g. sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the steps when each is taken alone. That is, the steps involved in the recited process undertake their roles in performance of their activities according to their generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes there are no meaningful limitations in claims 21-40 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Closest US Patent/US Pre-Grant Publication
The combination of Rotman, US 9,142,035, in view of Eckman, US 10,984,378, further in view of Masud, US 2012/0054184, was cited as the closest prior art combination during prosecution of parent patent application 18/076830. Rotman-Eckman-Masud is the closest prior combination. Forward/backward citations of Rotman, Eckman and Masud failed to reveal closer prior art. AI tools, More Like this Document (MLTD) and Similarity, failed to reveal closer prior art. Rotman, Eckman or Masud alone or in combination with cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods claimed.
Closest Non-Patent Literature
Cubetape, IDS filed July 1, 2025 and cited as the closest NPL prior art during prosecution of parent patent application 18/076830, is the closest non-patent literature. Cubetape discloses: Incorrect package or pallet dimensions are costing your business money. When shipping less than truckload (LTL) size packages it’s now even more important to have an easy to use dimensioner to measure your shipments. The introduction of dimensional weight pricing by major freight carriers has made precise freight measurements necessary, to accurately project shipping costs. A handheld measuring tool that facilitates correct dimensional weight calculations will increase your business’ productivity. Cubetape is that tool! Cubetape delivers user-friendly and cost-effective solutions that allow you to gain control of this critical shipment data.
Cubetape alone or in combination with cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 PM.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights