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 . Claims 1-8 and 16-19 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant amended claims. Claims 9-15 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The claims overcame the currently known prior art in the Non-Final office action dated 05/15/2025. The 102/103 Rejections are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that claims are directed towards an improved system that cannot be performed in the human mind. Applicant further contends that the claims are not directed towards directed towards the abstract idea groupings nor the enumerated categories as the claims are directed towards a complex coordination and optimization system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the mental processes of coordinating and optimizing delivery from oil sites to delivery destinations, assigning operators and vehicles to route assignments, and generating an optimized route all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (via pen and paper) which under its broadest reasonable interpretation. The additional elements are each separated and analyzed both individually as well as in combination as seen below. Further, the claims are directed towards steps for assigning routes for vehicle operators and optimizing routes for operators while minimizing travel distance, travel time, and various other parameters which exemplifies “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Examiner further points the Applicant’s specification to provide further evidence of the analysis that the claims are directed towards business relations. (Specification, [02-03]; the present disclosure relates to route and lease management for delivery of fuels from oil lease sites… In the oil industry, crude oil is pumped from an oil field and delivered to a refinery where the crude oil is refined such that the oil can be used by consumers. The coordination of pickup and delivery is often a complex issue, essentially the difficulty lies in determining when crude oil may be picked up from numerous oil fields located throughout an area and then delivered to any number of stations or refineries).
Applicant contends that when the claims are read as a whole improves the technology by improving a system for coordinating delivery. Applicant further points to McRo and CardioNet…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are considered individually as well as in combination and are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The present claims do not recite the same fact pattern as McRo or CardioNet, as CardioNet are directed towards identifying heart beats in a sensed cardiac signal and activating a T wave filter, using said heartbeats in response to a message and McRo automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea, respectively. The current claims do not recite similar elements.
Applicant contends that the claims are mischaracterized at a high level of generality and are directed to a specific means that improves the relevant technology. Applicant points to Enfish…
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are considered individually as well as in combination and are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The present claims do not recite the same fact pattern as McRo or Enfish, as Enfish recites a self-referential table for a computer database is directed to an improvement in computer capabilities and not directed to an abstract idea and McRo automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea, respectively. The current claims do not recite similar elements.
Applicant contends at Step 2A-Prong 1 that claims do not recite an abstract idea as the claims recite are not capable of being performed in the human mind nor are they certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant further points the Specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner further points to the previous paragraphs wherein the claims are determined to be both mental processes as well as certain methods of organizing human activity. The full analysis of the additional elements can be seen below in the 101 Rejection.
Applicant contends at Step 2A-Prong 2 that the claims as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further points to the claim language asserting that the claims add more than generally linking the use of any abstract idea to a technical field, provides a practical application, and impose meaningful limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are separated and addressed in Steps 2A- P2 and 2B and determined to be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes as well as certain methods of organizing human activity as described below in the full 101 analysis. The use of modules, engines, interfaces, etc. are merely using a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
Applicant contends that the claims generate and optimize routes based on unique systems, improve technology, provides a practical application, and are not within abstract idea groupings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are separated and addressed in Steps 2A- P2 and 2B and determined to be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes as well as certain methods of organizing human activity as described below in the full 101 analysis.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 1-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-8 and 16-20 is/are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1-8 and 16-20 recite a series of steps for determining oil field logistics (with regard to assigning and optimizing routes):
Regarding Claims 1 (additional elements bolded)
A system for coordinating crude oil delivery from oil field lease sites to delivery destinations, comprising:
an oil field lease site, a registered vehicle, and a registered operator configured with a mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is equipped with GPS positioning;
a transportation management application configured to coordinate and optimize the oil delivery from oil field lease sites to delivery destinations, comprising:
a database comprising one or more oil field lease sites, one or more registered vehicle, a registered vehicle size corresponding to the one or more registered vehicles, a registered operator corresponding to each of the one or more registered vehicles, and an availability of each registered operator;
an operator request module for requesting, by a registered operator on the mobile computing device, one or more oil field lease sites based in part on the registered operator proximity from the GPS positioning on the mobile computing device to the oil field lease sites and the registered vehicle size;
a route assignment module for assigning the registered operators and the registered vehicles to route assignments based at least in part on information received from the operator request module and on a database field of oil field lease sites, and the registered operator proximity from the GPS positioning on the mobile computing device to the oil field lease sites, the availability of the registered operator, and the registered vehicle size; and
an optimization engine configured to generate and optimize a route based on one or more route assignments provided by the route assignment module of the registered vehicle to the oil field lease site and to the delivery destinations, wherein the optimization engine performs a calculation to minimize travel distance and travel time based on parameters of registered vehicle weight, the registered vehicle size, present route traffic, average route speed, and weather;
where the parameters in part define the route and influence the optimization engine in the generation and optimization of the route;
wherein the transportation management engine is configured to coordinate the database, operator request module, route assignment module, and optimization engine, wherein the route is generated and/or assigned based at least in part on fuel efficiency and efficiency in quantity historically delivered to the destination; and
a first dashboard operatively configured to the transportation management application having an administrative view and a second dashboard operatively configured to the transportation management application having an operator view, wherein the administrative view and the operator view are connected to the transportation management system in parallel to simultaneously process information from both the first dashboard and the second dashboard and further transmit and/or receive information from the transportation management application in parallel, wherein the first dashboard is configured to receive an input and assign a route to an operator via the optimization engine, and
wherein the mobile computing device of the registered operator is configured for the operator to capable of access the transportation management application, selecting a route assignment from the route assignment module, wherein selecting the route assignment comprises providing an optimized route to the second dashboard via the optimization engine.
The claims are directed towards coordinating and optimizing delivery from oil sites to delivery destinations, assigning operators and vehicles to route assignments, and generating an optimized route all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (via pen and paper) which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and
Further the claims are directed towards “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards selecting and optimizing routes of delivery drivers.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an oil field lease site, a registered vehicle, and a registered operator configured with a mobile computing device, wherein the mobile computing device is equipped with GPS positioning; a transportation management application; a database; an operator request module for requesting… on the mobile computing device… from the GPS positioning on the mobile computing device; a route assignment module; an optimization engine; the transportation management engine is configured to coordinate the database, operator request module, route assignment module, and optimization engine; a first dashboard operatively configured to the transportation management application having an administrative view and a second dashboard operatively configured to the transportation management application having an operator view, wherein the administrative view and the operator view are connected to the transportation management system in parallel to simultaneously process information from both the first dashboard and the second dashboard and further transmit and/or receive information from the transportation management application in parallel; and access the transportation management application; and providing an optimized route to the second dashboard via the optimization engine are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the claim recites additional element of a statistics module. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 3-5, the claim recites additional element of a first dashboard provides a module(s). This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the claim recites additional element of a first and/or second dashboard is configured in a server to point to a URL. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the claim recites additional element of a second dashboard is configured to a mobile computing application for viewing of the operator view. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the claim recites additional element of a communications module for communicating with a plurality of registered operators and mobile computing device configured to access the transportation management application. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, the claim recites additional element of available to access offline by the mobile computing device by caching data on the mobile computing device. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the claim recites additional element of history component. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, the claim recites additional element of GPS positioning on the mobile computing device is configured to transmit the registered operator location to the transportation management system. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two. In Step 2B, is an activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the claim recites additional element of the optimization engine implements one or more of a simulated annealing algorithm, a genetic algorithm, and a neural network to generate and optimize the route. This element is performing are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) in Steps 2A-Prong Two and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624