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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 9-16 are processes and Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
A fluid delivery tracking system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory in communication with the one or more processors, that stores computer-executable instructions that, upon execution, cause the system to:
receive an order for transport of liquid from a shipper storage tank associated with a shipper profile to a receiver storage tank associated with a receiver profile (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
communicate a set of instructions for processing the order to a carrier device (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
automatically generate one or more status updates on a status of the liquid based on data uploaded to the system via the carrier device, and communicate the status updates to an interface associated with one or more of the shipper profile, the receiver profile, the carrier device, or a third party to enhance safety in transport of the liquid, the status updates comprising a combination of one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and one or more of (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)):
location of the carrier device (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), or
a scan of a unique identifier associated with one or more of the shipper storage tank or the receiver storage tank (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
generate a confirmation that the delivery of the liquid has been completed based on the data obtained from the carrier device and associate the confirmation with one or more of the shipper profile, the receiver profile, or the third party (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) is directed to a series of steps for confirming product delivery, which are mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of one or more processors, memory in communication with the one or more processors, a shipper storage tank, a carrier device, and an interface, does not take the claim out of the mental processes. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: one or more processors, memory in communication with the one or more processors, a shipper storage tank, a carrier device, and an interface, that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) receive an order, b) communicate a set of instructions, c) automatically generate one or more status updates and communicate the status updates to an interface, and d) generate a confirmation that the delivery has been completed, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 9 and 17) is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Prior Art
The prior arts of record fail to teach the overall combination of Claims 1-20. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Exemplary claim 1 recites the following:
A fluid delivery tracking system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory in communication with the one or more processors, that stores computer-executable instructions that, upon execution, cause the system to:
receive an order for transport of liquid from a shipper storage tank associated with a shipper profile to a receiver storage tank associated with a receiver profile;
communicate a set of instructions for processing the order to a carrier device;
automatically generate one or more status updates on a status of the liquid based on data uploaded to the system via the carrier device, and communicate the status updates to an interface associated with one or more of the shipper profile, the receiver profile, the carrier device, or a third party to enhance safety in transport of the liquid, the status updates comprising a combination of one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and one or more of:
location of the carrier device, or
a scan of a unique identifier associated with one or more of the shipper storage tank or the receiver storage tank; and
generate a confirmation that the delivery of the liquid has been completed based on the data obtained from the carrier device and associate the confirmation with one or more of the shipper profile, the receiver profile, or the third party. (Emphasis added to highlight features that distinguish over the prior art).
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
US Pat 6,715,514 "Parker" discloses managing the transport, delivery, holding,
dispensing, and removal of fluid material from a source to a user. However, Parker fails to disclose automatically generating status updates on delivery of the liquid comprising one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and at least one of: a location of the carrier device, or a scan of a QR code associated with a storage tank at storage location, based on data uploaded to a system via the carrier device.
US Pat Pub 2012/0246039 "Fain" teaches managing a fleet of delivery trucks and drivers, providing automated timekeeping, messaging, ticketing and billing. Fain fails to teach automatically generating status updates on delivery of the liquid comprising one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and at least one of: a location of the carrier device, or a scan of a QR code associated with a storage tank at storage location, based on data uploaded to a system via the carrier device.
US Pat 9,386,553 "Berger" teaches securing a container includes inserting, into a seal device at a container, an electronic bolt; reading, by the seal device, a serial number stored in the electronic bolt; communicating, from the seal device, to a user application, insertion of the bolt; scanning, by the user via a handheld device, a barcode on the seal device representative of an identification of the seal device; communicating, from the handheld device to the user application, the identification of the seal device; inputting, by a user at the container via the handheld device, information associated with the container; communicating, from the handheld device to the user application, the information associated with the container; associating, in a database by the user application, the information associated with the container with the bolt serial number and the identification of the seal device; communicating, by the user application, a confirmation to the seal device. Berger fails to teach automatically generating status updates on delivery of the liquid comprising one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and at least one of: a location of the carrier device, or a scan of a QR code associated with a storage tank at storage location, based on data uploaded to a system via the carrier device.
US Pat Pub 2020/0023764 "Keiser" teaches unlocking a portable device when a user device is sensed to be near the portable container. Keiser fails to teach automatically generating status updates on delivery of the liquid comprising one or more procedures for completing a stage of the delivery of the liquid and at least one of: a location of the carrier device, or a scan of a QR code associated with a storage tank at storage location, based on data uploaded to a system via the carrier device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights