DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 17, 2025, has been entered.
In the response filed August 6, 2025, the Applicant amended claim 9 and canceled claims 12-18. In the response filed November 17, 2025, the Applicant amended claim 9-11 and added claims 19-32. Claims 9-11 and 19-32 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 9-11 and 19-32 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining and adjusting for an optimal or cost effective routing path to deliver shipments to an endpoint location, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a transportation operating system comprising: a receiving bay that receives a shipment comprising containers to be routed over a distance to an endpoint(s); and a container router that disassembles the received shipment comprising containers into constituent parts,” “wherein the container router comprises a first cooperative distributed processor and a second cooperative distributed processor,” “radio frequency identification (RFID), global positioning satellite (GPS), and condition-monitoring sensors,” and “a gate configured to operate as a packet switching gateway and a container loader configured to perform a re-assembly operation,” (claim 9), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity).
Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 9-11 and 19-32 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein the first cooperative distributed processor and the second cooperative distributed processor are configured to jointly transport a given container across a route… to load the given container onto a train consist with other containers,” in lines 35-41. It is unclear as to how a distributed processor or distributed processors would be able to physically transport a given container across a route. As such, the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. For purposes of examination, the first cooperative distributed processor and the second cooperative distributed processor is treated to provide route instructions to transport a given container across a route. Claims 10, 11, and 19-32 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claim 9.
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 9-11 and 19-32 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 1: Claims 9-11 and 19-32 are drawn to a machine, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites/describes the following steps:
“…routes each constituent part as an individual packet payload comprising a container over a branching and interconnecting mesh of individual point-to-point serial links, thereby providing myriad potential paths for the individual packet payloads parts comprising containers to traverse the distance separating the receiving bay from the endpoint(s),”
“..automatically, in a coordinated manner, determine an optimal or least cost route over which the individual packet payloads comprising containers travel using packet switching data network protocols, thereby providing an efficient and timely routing for each individual packet payload comprising a container that balances capacity of any individual path with priority of arrival of the individual packet payloads comprising containers for loading at the endpoint(s),”
“determine, in real-time, an optimized routing path for each individual packet payload comprising a container based on real-world data including container type, physical dimensions, and transportation mode;”
“dynamically adjusting the optimized routing paths for the containers during container transport based on environmental constraints, for use in transporting the containers based on optimized and continuously dynamically adjusted routing paths;”
“receiving real-time sensor inputs from the containers during transport of the containers, …and automatically adjusting the optimized routing paths and handling based on container-specific physical constraints to ensure safe and efficient transportation of the containers;”
“…coordinate between multiple transport modes, including rail, road, and sea, to adapt the routing paths for the containers based on specific requirements of each of said multiple transport modes;”
“…jointly transport a given container across a route… to load the given container onto a train consist with other containers,”
“…communicate planned timing and exchange location information of the given container therebetween in order to reduce latency for a handoff of the given container from the first cooperative distributed processor to the second cooperative distributed processor,”
“…jointly determine and negotiate a sequence in which the given container is to move through a network of container transport stations and each being further configured to make adjustments in planned yet-to-be executed trajectories and timings of movements of the given container through the network of electromechanical container transport stations, the adjustments resulting from dynamically changing exchanges and replanning events,”
“…track magnitude of work performed, attribution of individual work components by responsible asset, continuous update of the work required to relocate the given container, and ability to dynamically exchange work.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining and adjusting for an optimal or cost effective routing path to deliver shipments to an endpoint location, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 10, 11, and 19-32 likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a transportation operating system comprising: a receiving bay that receives a shipment comprising containers to be routed over a distance to an endpoint(s); and a container router that disassembles the received shipment comprising containers into constituent parts,” “wherein the container router comprises a first cooperative distributed processor and a second cooperative distributed processor,” “radio frequency identification (RFID), global positioning satellite (GPS), and condition-monitoring sensors,” and “a gate configured to operate as a packet switching gateway and a container loader configured to perform a re-assembly operation,” (claim 9).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a transportation operating system comprising: a receiving bay that receives a shipment comprising containers to be routed over a distance to an endpoint(s); and a container router that disassembles the received shipment comprising containers into constituent parts,” “wherein the container router comprises a first cooperative distributed processor and a second cooperative distributed processor,” “radio frequency identification (RFID), global positioning satellite (GPS), and condition-monitoring sensors,” and “a gate configured to operate as a packet switching gateway and a container loader configured to perform a re-assembly operation,” (claim 9), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Remaining dependent claims 10, 11, and 19-32 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a transportation operating system comprising: a receiving bay that receives a shipment comprising containers to be routed over a distance to an endpoint(s); and a container router that disassembles the received shipment comprising containers into constituent parts,” “wherein the container router comprises a first cooperative distributed processor and a second cooperative distributed processor,” “radio frequency identification (RFID), global positioning satellite (GPS), and condition-monitoring sensors,” and “a gate configured to operate as a packet switching gateway and a container loader configured to perform a re-assembly operation,” (claim 9), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity).
Remaining dependent claims 10, 11, and 19-32 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 19-32 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Carvajal et al. (US 2016/0019497 A1) discloses a system implementing a network for transporting, distributing, and/or storing one or more physical items in one or more cargo containers (herein may be referred to as the “transportation network” for short). The cargo containers and relay terminals may be identified via node addresses in a network address space. The no addresses enables the transportation system to track, route, and monitor the physical items as they propagate through the transportation network. The transportation network can mimic routing protocols of telecommunication systems can facilitate different private transportation, storage and distribution companies and fleets. The transportation network can enable dynamic routing to fulfill logistic requests without wasting transportation and storage resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628