DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Interview held on 3/23/2026. Prosecution has been reopened and finality of the Office Action mailed 02/24/2026 is withdrawn. This Office Action replaces the Fina Office Action mailed 02/24/2026.
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.
Examiner notes that 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…”.
The analysis of claims under Step 2A2 presented below addresses in more detail the limitations directed to the use of an autonomous vehicle. These limitations are merely applying the use of an autonomous vehicle as an additional element to perform the abstract idea on a computer. 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. 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 MPEP 2106.05(f) In Re Brown.
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 (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.” Regarding the use of an autonomous vehicle, although the act of moving vehicles as recited in the claim “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” is not considered a mental process, these limitations would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure (i.e. AV yard trucks) merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05). See other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process including: A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP 2106.05(f). 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
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
Prosecution Insights