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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 23 – 42 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 07/15/2025. Claims 23, 30, & 37 were amended in a reply filed 10/14/2025. Claims 23 – 42 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the reply filed 10/14/2025 did not address the previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in Applicant’s arguments or through amendments. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 112(b) for 23 – 29 & 37 – 42 is maintained.
The claims filed 10/14/2025 have overcome the previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for claims 30 – 36.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/14/2025 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 9 – 10, that “that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea” as the claims recite “a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user” by “identifying a subset of characters, matching the subset of characters, and underlining the subset of characters in the carrier indicia,” similar to Core Wireless.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Indeed, the limitations of the claims in Core Wireless were found by the Court to “disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user” – but they accomplished this by specifying a particular manner by which a summary window must be accessed, restraining the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window, and disclosing a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. The claimed invention of Core Wireless “improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,” which can be accessed directly from the main menu,” as described by the specification of Core Wireless.
In contrast to Core Wireless, the instant claims are not directed to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology, as evidenced by the instant specification. For example, the title of the instant invention is “Method and System for Managing Shipment Information.” The instant specification, in paragraph [0002], states that the claimed invention is “directed to a computer program, method, and system for shippers and carriers to create, discuss, negotiate and manage shipping transactions that involve the shipment of items and trucking requests that involve the availability of cargo vehicles to ship items.”
The claimed functionality of identifying a subset of characters, matching the subset of characters, and underlining the subset of characters in the carrier indicia are steps that would be performed as part of a commercial interaction in which available various carriers are shown to a shipper using a pencil and paper. Moreover, there is not a section of the instant specification that explains a technological improvement is in Core Wireless. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 10 – 11, that “the claims integrate this purportedly abstract idea into a practical application by providing for a particular GUI structure and background functionality that imposes a meaningful limit on any purported judicial exception” because “identifying a subset of characters, matching the subset of characters, and underlining the subset of characters in the carrier indicia” “improves the user interface,” similar to Core Wireless.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and reiterates that there is not a section of the instant specification that explains a technological improvement is in Core Wireless. Also, “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” (See MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 11 – 12, that the steps of “identifying and underlining text comprising characters, the text identifying carriers in a list based on real-time text input by the user” is not “not well-known, routine, and conventional,” and thus amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that underlining text is a part of the recited commercial interaction of managing shipping transactions. Additionally, this functionality was not classified by the Office as being well-known, routine, or conventional activity. There is no evidence that the underlining of text improves the functionality of a computing device or any other technology in the instant disclosure. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements that amount to significantly more.
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 23 – 29 & 37 – 42 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 23 & 37 recite the limitation “the carrier” in the limitation “causing display of a carrier input field comprising a prompt to enter text indicative of the carrier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the carrier” in the claims. In particular, the immediately-preceding limitation recites the limitation “a plurality of potential carriers” – so it is unclear as to which carrier the limitation “the carrier” refers to. For the purpose of examiner, “the carrier” will be interpreted as any carrier, or equivalents thereof.
Claims 24 – 29 & 38 – 42 are additionally rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for inheriting the deficiencies while failing to remedy them.
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 23 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 23 – 29 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 30 – 36 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., a product); claims 37 – 42 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 23 – 42 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 23, 30, & 37 substantially recite: causing display of a shipment list of a plurality of shipments…; receiving a request by the shipper to generate a new shipment request for a new shipment; causing display of a shipment request… comprising a carrier list comprising a plurality of potential carriers; receiving, from the shipper, the text comprising a set of characters, wherein the set of characters match indicative of a plurality of carriers; detecting a plurality of carrier indicia indicative of the plurality of carriers based on the subset of the text from the shipper; matching the subset with carrier characters; causing display of the plurality of carrier indicia indicative of the plurality of carriers, indicating each carrier indicia that includes the subset of the text by underlining, in real time, the subset of the text that matches each carrier indicia, wherein each carrier indicia of the plurality of carrier indicia are selectable by the shipper…; receiving the shipment information indicative of a shipment; sending a message… to each carrier of the plurality of carriers…; and… providing… the shipment information.
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass managing shipping transactions between a shippers and carriers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 23, 30, & 37, as a whole, amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 23 recites the additional computer elements of: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, processor, shipping graphical user interface (GUI), shipper server, data store, screen, carrier GUI, & carrier server. Claim 30 recites the additional computer elements of: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions, processor, shipping graphical user interface (GUI), shipper server, screen, & carrier server. Claim 37 recites the additional computer elements of: shipping graphical user interface (GUI), shipper server, screen, & carrier server. Claims 23, 30, & 37 also substantially recite the additional elements of: “causing display of a shipping graphical user interface (GUI) by a shipper server and to the shipper,” “stored on a shipper database,” “causing display of a carrier input field comprising a prompt to enter text indicative of the carrier,” “upon receiving a subset of the set of characters of the text from the shipper, removing the prompt to enter the text,” “when selected, the carrier input field is automatically updated with a communication indicia configured for communication with a respective carrier,” “linking a communication protocol with each carrier indicia displayed in the carrier input field,” “embedded link,” “by the communication protocol,” and “upon selection of the embedded link, providing a carrier GUI.”
The additional user-interface related elements of shipping graphical user interface (GUI), screen, carrier GUI, “causing display of a shipping graphical user interface (GUI) by a shipper server and to the shipper,” “causing display of a carrier input field comprising a prompt to enter text indicative of the carrier,” “upon receiving a subset of the set of characters of the text from the shipper, removing the prompt to enter the text,” as well as “when selected, the carrier input field is automatically updated with a communication indicia configured for communication with a respective carrier” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the additional element of “stored on a shipper database,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional computer-related elements of processor, shipper server, carrier server, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions, and data store are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “linking a communication protocol with each carrier indicia displayed in the carrier input field,” “embedded link,” “by the communication protocol,” and “upon selection of the embedded link, providing a carrier GUI” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the extra-solution functionality of “stored on a shipper database” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Electronic recordkeeping,” & “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, processor, shipping graphical user interface (GUI), shipper server, data store, screen, carrier GUI, carrier server, “stored on a shipper database,” “causing display of a shipping graphical user interface (GUI) by a shipper server and to the shipper,” “causing display of a carrier input field comprising a prompt to enter text indicative of the carrier,” “upon receiving a subset of the set of characters of the text from the shipper, removing the prompt to enter the text,” “when selected, the carrier input field is automatically updated with a communication indicia configured for communication with a respective carrier,” “linking a communication protocol with each carrier indicia displayed in the carrier input field,” “embedded link,” “by the communication protocol,” and “upon selection of the embedded link, providing a carrier GUI” fail to 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 24 – 29, 31 – 36, & 38 – 42 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628