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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-7, 11-39 are pending with claims 11-39 withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 and 102/103 rejections are moot in view of the amendment to the claim. The claims have been heavily amended that previous rejection wouldn’t be applicable. Please see the office action below for detail.
Claim Objection
Claim 7 is objected because processor and server are referring to deleted limitation. It appears to be a typographical error.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 are system claims where the system is comprised of various software components with absolutely no physical structure. Therefore, it doesn’t fall into either of machine or manufacture as it contains no “concrete things” nor “tangible article”. Therefore, it do not fall into any one of the four statutory categories.
Examiner notes database can be pure software (e.g., a spreadsheet file). Similarly, user interface are also broad enough to encompass software only (e.g., windows operating system users graphical user interface). While specification provide examples that UI can be physical machines, they are not definitions that set the definition of user interface. Examiner notes claim 7 includes processor and server and would overcome the issue above.
Examiner notes analysis below would incorporate claim 7 into claim 1-6.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claims 1 and 7, all the limitations of claim 1, except for user interface are abstract idea. Particularly, with the exception of “generate real-time quote”, the rest of the claim limitations, when viewed as a group, shows a series of steps to track travel status. Examiner particularly notes prediction model and normalizing can be broadly interpreted as series of rules such as setting things to the same timeline and use a formula to make prediction. This falls into both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities as following rules or business relation. As of generate quotes, this is another abstract idea that also falls into both mental process (e.g., mentally making determination) and certain methods of organizing human activities of creating business relationship or fundamental economic practice or even forming contracts. Adding one abstract idea onto another doesn’t make a claim less abstract. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are user interface that access databases and computer hardware. These are all generic computer components discussed in high generality. They’re also only being used to describe the operating environment. Therefore, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. This wouldn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, where the same analysis would still apply in step 2B, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They wouldn’t provide significantly more either. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are not eligible.
Claims 2-6 merely further limit the abstract idea by providing additional step to be performed. Examiner notes displaying data can be an abstract idea for at least the reason that it’s similar to EPG’s displaying information, which is mental process.
Examiner recommend further amending the claim to show how the multiple databases achieve improvement in tracking efficiency. As currently written, it appears to be merely conclusory that such setup would allegedly improve efficiency without any detail to enable one ordinary skilled understand the improvement. Examiner would also note that as currently written, second and third database need not exclusively store certain type of vessel data, which makes the claim appear to be more generic. Examiner notes this is purely a suggestion and not a requirement. Examiner would be more than happy to consider any arguments regarding eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bateman (US 20170154347 A1), in view of Jones (US 20180349849).
As per claim 1, Bateman discloses a digital freight forwarding system comprising:
a first database configured to store freight forwarding data of companies involved in freight forwarding activities, wherein the freight forwarding data comprises at least one of identification information, pricing data, and shipping rates (see at least Bateman, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, item 100 and S120-S130, where delivery prediction system collects data including shipment status for models to make delivery estimate);
a second database configured to store data related to vessels that have reached a predetermined destination (see at least Bateman, 0049, 0058-0059, noting each carrier having completed delivery data and delivery that are enroute, which can be updated or reassigned based on updated delivery estimate triggered by completion of one leg of journey);
a third database configured to store data related to vessels that have not reached a predetermined destination (see at least Bateman, 0049, 0058-0059, noting each carrier having completed delivery data and delivery that are enroute, which can be updated or reassigned based on updated delivery estimate triggered by completion of one leg of journey);
a software application configured to:
access vessel data from the second database access vessel data from the third database process vessel data to normalize data for additional processing, wherein the vessel data includes data related to vessels that have reached a predetermined destination accessed from the second database and data related to vessels that have not reached a predetermined destination accessed from the third database build a prediction model using the normalized data from the vessel data, wherein the prediction model is configured to predict arrival times provide real-time status updates regarding freight forwarding activities (see at least Bateman, 0029 noting normalize can be standardize or convert delivery data that is suitable to be used in delivery prediction model (S130). See 0049, 0058-0059, delivery data includes one vessel reaching intended destination as well as another one that has not yet reached their intended destination because update on estimate is triggered by first part of journey completed and update the estimate of remaining part (vessel enroute))
a user interface configured to provide access to the first database, the second database, and the third database (see at least Bateman, Fig. 2, user devices)
Bateman discloses tracking travel status of freight forwarding activities for various carriers but does not explicitly disclose also generating real-time quotes regarding freight forwarding activities.
Jones teaches generating real-time quotes for freight forwarding activities while tracking the status (Jones, 0133, where a delay (tracking status) triggers locating alternative TSP driver to take a load. See 0085 locating driver involves quoting to consumer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Jones’ price quote to Bateman for the purpose of allowing parties to negotiate a bid/quote that satisfy everyone in response to delay (Jones: 0137, 0133).
As per claim 2, Bateman further discloses the digital freight forwarding system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is further configured to display the freight forwarding, logistics, shipping, and cargo information based on a search criteria received through the user interface (see at least Bateman, 0041, S142 received through user. See Fig. 2 where S142 performed through user device. See Also Fig. 4 for output display).
As per claim 3, Bateman discloses the digital freight forwarding system of claim 2, wherein the user interface is further configured to display the freight forwarding, logistics, shipping, and cargo information as one or a combination of textual data, visual data, and audio data (see Fig. 4 for text visual display)
As per claim 4, Bateman discloses the digital freight forwarding system of claim 1, wherein the freight forwarding, logistics, shipping, and cargo information includes pricing data and rates for shipment services (see at least Bateman, 0053 rate quote for different service-level).
As per claim 5, Bateman does not but Jones teaches the digital freight forwarding system of claim 1, wherein the software application is further configured to allow the user to create one or more to generate sales quotes based on the freight forwarding data (Jones, 0133, where a delay (tracking status) triggers locating alternative TSP driver to take a load. See 0085 locating driver involves quoting to consumer).
The rationale to combine would persist.
As per claim 6, Bateman further discloses the digital freight forwarding system of claim 5, wherein the software application further comprises a coordination module that comprises:
a pricing module configured to respond to rate queries (Bateman, 0053);
a rate management module configured to manage rates for different destinations, carriers, and equipment (Bateman, 0053).
As per claim 7, Bateman further discloses the digital freight forwarding system of claim 1, wherein the computer processor and the server are operatively coupled to the user interface (see at least Bateman, Fig. 2, user device is connected to system that sends notification and update to it).
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628