DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the Notice of Appeal filed 09/30/2025.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Status of claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
On page 2 of the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference request, Applicant argues that the Examiner has mischaracterized the pending claims as directed to a “mental process” or “mathematical concept” without properly considering the technological environment explicitly recited in the claims and that this characterization is wholly inconsistent with the recitation in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 of autonomous yard trucks operating within a defined shipping facility to perform trailer movement tasks that improve trailer yard logistics and improve safety. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers observations or evaluations then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas and if a claim covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Some of the limitations directed to mental process include: “…optimizing and routing of one or more autonomous vehicle (AV) yard trucks around a shipping facility…; “…receiving location and status information with respect to the one or more AV yard trucks relative to the facility…” “…storing information with respect to AV yard truck task locations and AV yard truck task types, wherein the AV yard truck task types include movement of trailers by the one or more AV yard trucks among spots in the facility…”; “…determining, from initial conditions of the stored information at least one of a forbidden AV yard truck trailer movement type task or a permitted AV yard type trailer movement type task for one or more of the one or more AV yard trucks…”; “…directing an on-board processor for each of the one or more AV yard trucks to carry out a set of AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks…”.
Limitations in the claims that are directed to mathematical concepts include: “…computing scores for most efficient carrying out of one or more AV yard truck trailer movement tasks with respect to each of the one or more AV yard trucks, the scores based on a transition cost factor Twxt computed for truck t, wherein Twxt = transition cost by truck t between task w and task x based on estimated durations for transitions between distinct AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks including at least one of task w or task x…”.
On page 2 of the provided remarks Applicant argues that the Examiner’s assessment ignores integration into a practical application and that even if, arguendo, the claims implicate an abstract idea, they are not directed to it in isolation but are instead integrated into a practical application involving autonomous vehicles performing physical tasks. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the computer components are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As noted in the rejection, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims, including the on-board processor, do no more than use the computer components as a tool and do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology improvement (See PEG 2019).
On page 3, Applicant argues that the claims improve the technological process by enabling autonomous vehicle (AV) trucks to carry out trailer movement in a safe, sequenced manner within a facility and that this improvement is not an abstraction but a concrete advancement related specifically to AV yard trucks and facilities, consistent with McRO and Enfish, which confirms that improvements to technology itself are patent-eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. in respect to McRo and Enfish the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). See MPEP 2106.05(a).
On page 3 Applicant argues that even assuming, arguendo, that the claims involve an abstract idea, the additional recited structural features including autonomous yard trucks performing trailer movement type tasks in a specific order while doing so responsively to safety criteria information captured by sensors mounted on the truck and the onboard and scheduling processors directing the yard truck performing those tasks based on computed transition costs amount to significantly more than generic computer implementation as purported by the Examiner. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Accordingly, the present claims merely recite computer elements sending and receiving data or instructions to perform a task, using an AV yard truck.
Lastly, the Examiner notes that the present claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 4 regarding the Examiner not evaluating the claims as a whole. As explained on page 11 of the current rejection the Examiner notes that even when considered as a whole the claim limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer and particularly an AV yard truck. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Examiner notes that the additional elements recited in the claims are just applying the use of a generic computer environment to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-23, the independent claims (claims 1 and 7) are directed, in part, to a system and a method for optimizing routing of autonomous vehicles. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-6, 14-17, 21, 23 are directed to an apparatus which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 7-12, 18, 22 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 13, 19-20 are directed to an autonomous vehicle, which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations and a mathematical concept which includes mathematical calculations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to:
optimizing and routing of one or more autonomous vehicle (AV) yard trucks around a shipping facility for improving safety of AV yard truck movements within the facility… receiving location and status information with respect to the one or more AV yard trucks relative to the facility and storing information with respect to AV yard trucks task locations and AV yard task types; determining from initial conditions from the stored information at least one of a forbidden AV yard truck trailer movement type task or a permitted AV yard type trailer movement type task for one or more of the one or more AV yard trucks (i.e. mental process);
and computing scores for most efficient carrying out of one or more AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks with respect to each of the one or more AV yard trucks; (i.e. mathematical concepts)
and directing an on-board processor for each of the one or more AV yard trucks to carry out the one or more AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks in a specified order that is derived from the initial conditions and the scores for most efficient carrying out of the one or more AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks, and, performing, with the one or more AV yard trucks in the shipping facility, the set of trailer movement type tasks responsive to trailer safety criteria information captured by sensors mounted on the AV yard truck and in a specified order that is derived from the initial conditions and the scores for most efficient carrying out of the one or more AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks, thereby improving the safety of the AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks within the facility. (i.e. mental process)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, if a claim limitation covers mathematical equations or calculations, then it falls under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite additional elements: “an apparatus”, “one or more autonomous vehicle (AV) yard trucks”, “a server”, “a scheduling processor”, “an interface”, “an on-board processor”, “sensors”. The dependent claims recite additional elements: “a plurality of sensors”, These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0028] and [0088] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The server 120 includes a variety of processing modules for handling AV yard truck movement, docking, safety, hitching and unhitching of trailers, and other operational functions (not shown). According to an illustrative embodiment, the architecture of the server 120 also includes an optimization process(or) or module 250. This process(or) 250 can contain a variety of processes/ors and/or functional modules to store and handle data in accordance with the illustrative embodiments herein, and described further below. By way of non-limiting example, the optimization process(or) 250 includes storage and handling for data from each of the AV yard trucks 252, and yard location data 254, which can include a layout of the yard, routes, locations of trailers and yard trucks. The process(or) 250 can also include a generalized scheduling process(or) 256 that uses truck and yard location data to perform the optimization functions of the illustrative embodiments herein, as described below (see Fig. 3 below). An interface function translates data between the server, the AV yard trucks and one or more users, who can access and control operations via a linked interface device 260, such as a general purpose PC, laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc. having an appropriate hard or soft keyboard 262 and graphical user interface (GUI, consisting, e.g. of a touchscreen 264 and/or mouse 266). The interface can be enabled to handle data using (e.g.) a web browser application that sends and receives HTML (or another data format) from the server interface 258. Such user interface arrangements can be highly variable in a manner clear to those of skill in the art”;
and “a depicted process or processor can be combined with other processes and/or processors or divided into various sub-processes or processors. Such sub-processes and/or sub-processors can be variously combined according to embodiments herein. Likewise, it is expressly contemplated that any function, process and/or processor herein can be implemented using electronic hardware, software consisting of a non-transitory computer-readable medium of program instructions, or a combination of hardware and software.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Dependent claims 2-3, 8-9 recite the use of “a plurality of sensors”, although not considered general purpose computer elements, the examiner hereby takes official notice of the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of these additional element(s) and therefore these elements fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea recited in the claims.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record (US Pub. No. 2020/0254619, Grundfest) discloses systems and methods for optimizing movement of autonomous vehicles, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: scheduling processor that determines, from initial conditions of the stored information at least one of a forbidden AV yard truck trailer movement type task or a permitted AV yard type trailer movement type task for one or more of the one or more AV yard trucks and that computes scores for most efficient carrying out of one or more AV yard truck trailer movement tasks with respect to each of the one or more AV yard trucks, the scores based on a transition cost factor Twxt computed for truck t, wherein Twxt = transition cost by truck t between task w and task x based on estimated durations for transitions between distinct AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks including at least one of task w or task x; and an electronic computer interface between the scheduling server and the one or more AV yard trucks through which the scheduling server directs an on-board processor for each of the one or more AV yard trucks to carry out a set of AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks; and performing, with the one or more AV yard trucks in the shipping facility, the set of trailer movement type tasks responsive to sensors mounted on the AV yard truck and in a specified order directed from the scheduling server that is derived from the initial conditions and the scores for most efficient carrying out of the one or more AV yard truck trailer movement type tasks.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625