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 .
Priority
Application 19/475,436 was filed on October 15, 2025, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2024/059024, filed April 3, 2024 and claims priority to Indian Patent Application No. 2023/11027998 filed on April 17, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 15, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “anonymizing cargo related data being used in a cargo and/or fleet management system is anonymized at least at several access levels in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical error and should read, “anonymizing cargo related data being used in a cargo and/or fleet management system, wherein the cargo related data is anonymized at least at several access levels in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-9 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 1 recites, “anonymized at least at several access levels in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how many access levels are included in the “several” access levels. The specification does not define “several” and one having ordinary skill in the art would not know how many access levels comprise “several” access levels. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted to read, “anonymized at least at a plurality of access levels in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, reducing thefts of cargo from commercial vehicles, comprising anonymizing cargo related data being used in cargo and/or fleet management is anonymized at least at several levels in which the cargo related data is displayed.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including commercial or legal interactions). Specifically, reducing thefts of cargo from commercial vehicles is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Examiner notes in light of p. 1 of Applicant’s Specification which states “anonymizing of cargo related data includes masking of cargo re- lated data, including at least cargo type, and/or cargo details and/or customer details and/or entire route from start to destination and/or the destination of the cargo”, which illustrates how anonymizing cargo related data is a commercial interaction (i.e., delivering cargo to a customer at an end destination).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to anonymize cargo related data at several levels and display cargo data can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a cargo and/or fleet management system. These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that, in light of p. 7 of Applicant’s specification stating “The described method is implemented as a computer program product, which is pref- erably executed on one or more processing units such as a computer terminal (calcu- lation unit) associated with the cargo and/or fleet management system 100, i.e. being part of it or being in signal communication with it”, the cargo and/or fleet management system is interpreted to refer to a computer or computing component that is in signal communication with a computer terminal.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. The additional elements in claims 7 and 9 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 7 and9, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 7 and 9 also recite the additional elements of: disabling media captures and data export (claim 7), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9), and one or more processors (claim 9). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 7 and 9, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of disabling media captures and data export (claim 7), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 9), and one or more processors (claim 9), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 7 and 9 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122 (b), in which the
patentor application, as the case maybe, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0311325 to Reblin et al. (Reblin).
As to claim 1, Reblin teaches anonymizing cargo related data being used in a cargo and/or fleet management system is anonymized at least at several access levels in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user (“A distribution network may comprise multiple levels [i.e., access levels] … To protect the PII of USPS customers, or of any distribution system, delivery point information [i.e., cargo related data] can be anonymized and/or encrypted, as will be described below. In some embodiments, the anonymized and/or encrypted delivery point information can be stored in the customer profile, where only the USPS, or the distribution network systems, can access and read the anonymized and/or encrypted delivery point information …” and “In function, the subscriber 302 may submit a request to the delivery point information system 200 to obtain and/or request anonymous delivery point identifier …” [0042-0049 and 0087-0088])
in which the cargo related data is displayed to a user (“The commercial interface 230 may comprise an interface through which users (e.g., customers, third party shippers, etc.) can request anonymized delivery point information and/or encrypted delivery point information for recipients, manage existing requests, receive computer readable codes from the distribution system, and view results from previous requests … ” and “… Once the use is authenticated by the authentication module 245 (for example, via the commercial interface 230), the user may be allowed to request, manage, or view anonymous delivery point identifier” [0075-0076 and 0084]).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium instead of a method. Because Reblin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium as well as a system (see at least Reblin [0179-0180]), claim 9 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying Reblin to render the claim obvious.
As to claim 2, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Reblin further teaches, wherein the anonymizing of the cargo related data includes masking of the cargo related data, including at least cargo type, cargo details, customer details, entire route from start to destination, and/or destination of the cargo (“… To protect the PII of USPS customers, or of any distribution system, delivery point information [i.e., destination of the cargo] can be anonymized and/or encrypted, as will be described below. In some embodiments, the anonymized and/or encrypted delivery point information can be stored in the customer profile, where only the USPS, or the distribution network systems, can access and read the anonymized and/or encrypted delivery point information …” and “… In some embodiments, the encrypted delivery point information may comprise recipient name [i.e., customer details] and delivery point information …” [0042-0049 and 0087-0088])
As to claim 5, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Reblin further teaches, comprising tracing the cargo related data being used in a cargo and/or fleet management system at least at a plurality of levels of access (“The authentication module 245 may authenticate [i.e., tracing] users who request anonymous recipient delivery point information via the delivery point information system 200 …” and “… The subscriber 302 can be a shipper, a recipient who wishes to have an anonymous address, a single use or limited-time code, The request may be submitted after the subscriber 302 is authenticated by the authentication system 308 …” [0084 and 0087]).
As to claim 6, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Reblin further teaches, wherein the tracing and the display of the cargo related data includes at least: tracing each access to the cargo related data in predefined time steps, and/or restricting access to the cargo related data and/or encoding data transfers within the cargo and/or fleet management system (“The authentication module 245 may authenticate [i.e., restricting access] users who request anonymous recipient delivery point information via the delivery point information system 200 …” and “… The subscriber 302 can be a shipper, a recipient who wishes to have an anonymous address, a single use or limited-time code, The request may be submitted after the subscriber 302 is authenticated by the authentication system 308 …” [0084 and 0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0311325 to Reblin et al. (Reblin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0372334 to Wrentmore (Wrentmore).
As to claim 3, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Reblin does not teach, wherein masking of the entire route and/or masking of the destination of cargo includes providing checkpoints for each cargo route such that only a predefined part of the route is displayed at a time, and wherein a next checkpoint is displayed only after reaching a current checkpoint. However, Wrentmore teaches, wherein masking of the entire route and/or masking of the destination of cargo includes providing checkpoints for each cargo route such that only a predefined part of the route is displayed at a time, and wherein a next checkpoint is displayed only after reaching a current checkpoint (“… The unique anonymous code 12 can be combined with a waypoint [i.e., checkpoint] address to form an anonymous address 14 as depicted in FIG. 4. The waypoint address can be any interim location, but in accordance with an illustrative example of the present invention the waypoint address is the mailing address of a processing facility …” and “… The anonymous address 14 is transformed into the user destination address 10 [i.e., next checkpoint] (step 116) by accessing the database stored in, e.g., the computing system 500, containing the anonymous address 14 associated with the user destination address 10. Because this lookup is performed when the mailed or shipped item arrives at the waypoint [i.e., current checkpoint] or subsequent thereto, the original sender has no access whatsoever to such information, thus preserving the anonymity of the user destination address, and likewise the anonymity of the user …” [0023-0025 and 0032-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein masking of the entire route and/or masking of the destination of cargo includes providing checkpoints for each cargo route such that only a predefined part of the route is displayed at a time, and wherein a next checkpoint is displayed only after reaching a current checkpoint, as taught by Wrentmore with the method for anonymizing cargo related data of Reblin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wrentmore that doing so would protect personal information during the mailing or shipping process while also making the process more secure [0005].
As to claim 4, Reblin in view of Wrentmore teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Reblin further teaches, wherein one of the checkpoints is the destination and wherein: the checkpoint that is the destination is only revealed a predefined number of checkpoints ahead of the destination, or the checkpoint that is the destination is a last checkpoint (“… The systems and methods disclosed are also configured to receive and distribute the item or items to which the encrypted delivery point information is applied to the proper recipient destinations as determined by the recipient information” and “The item processing equipment 235 may comprise equipment that the delivery point information system 200 uses to scan, identify, sort, route, and otherwise distribute items from their respective sources to their respective destinations or recipients …” [0045 and 0080]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0311325 to Reblin et al. (Reblin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0091346 to Furuichi et al. (Furuichi).
As to claim 7, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Reblin does not teach, comprising disabling media captures and data export. However, Furuichi teaches, comprising disabling media captures and data export (“… The vehicle manager 108 may further disable certain devices in the unmanned vehicle 200.sub.i, such as cameras, to prevent the unmanned vehicle 200.sub.i from unauthorized gathering of images and video of the controlled area …” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, comprising disabling media captures and data export, as taught by Furuichi with the method for anonymizing cargo related data of Reblin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Furuichi that doing so would prevent unauthorized gathering of images and video of a controlled area [0053].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0311325 to Reblin et al. (Reblin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0294903 to Hicks et al. (Hicks).
As to claim 8, Reblin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Reblin does not teach, comprising performing periodic testing by system wide tests configured to extract the cargo related data from the cargo and/or fleet management system in order to find a system gap, wherein the cargo related data is configured to be excluded from being extracted. However, Hicks teaches, comprising performing periodic testing by system wide tests configured to extract the (“… For example, protection relates to cybersecurity protection levels and frameworks, the system's vulnerability to attack [i.e., a system gap] from the outside by a bad actor, e.g., bad actor computing device 26, from the outside by crawlers attempting to accesses [i.e., extract] data that should be secure [i.e., data is configured to be excluded from being extracted], to resist security attacks from within by one that has access to a portion of the system but that should not have access to all of the system, by malware within the system, and by other system security threats …” and “… The overall system evaluation may be done one time, periodically, or continuously …” and “… For example, an organization may have a dedicated task force to periodically test and evaluate an organization's protection efforts. After an event and/or incident is recovered, the task force can address any vulnerabilities and issues with the response and recovery plans and strategies for more favorable results in the future …” [0158 and 0318-0319 and 0615]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, comprising performing periodic testing by system wide tests configured to extract the
While Hicks teaches data, Hicks does not teach cargo related data. However, Reblin teaches cargo related data (“As used herein, the term “item” [i.e., cargo] may refer to discrete articles in the distribution network, such as mail pieces, letters, flats, magazines, periodicals, packages, parcels, goods handled by a warehouse distribution system, baggage in a terminal, such as an airport, etc., and the like …” and “… To protect the PII of USPS customers, or of any distribution system, delivery point information [i.e., cargo related data] can be anonymized and/or encrypted, as will be described below …” [0039 and 0043-0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize cargo related data as in Reblin in the system testing of Hicks. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Reblin that doing so would enhance security and prevent senders from reverse engineering recipients' identities and delivery points [0055].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0142321 to Kaczmarek et al. (Kaczmarek)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights