DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 9 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Status of the Application
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Response to Amendments
4. Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/07/2026 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
5. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of 25 filed on 07/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 are withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of 25 filed on 07/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20 are withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
8. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 12-24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that the Examiner dismissed Dr. Hauser's Declaration on the grounds that (1) eligibility under § 101 is a legal question, not a factual one, and therefore expert testimony has "strictly limited" weight and (2) the declaration fails to establish a nexus between the claimed features and technical benefits (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 12-13 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the Examiner improperly discounted Dr. Hauser's declaration by conflating the legal question of eligibility with the factual predicates underlying the eligibility analysis. The argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner does not dispute that declarations may provide factual evidence relevant to eligibility. However, the weight afforded to such evidence depends on whether the declaration establishes facts that are material to the eligibility inquiry.
Here, Dr. Hauser's declaration primarily provides conclusions regarding the alleged technological significance of the claimed invention. The declaration asserts that the claimed architecture improves GPS functionality, but does not establish that the claims improve the operation of a computer or another technological field. The alleged improvement identified by Applicant is: "enabling GPS devices to incorporate risk analysis without hardware or software modification." However, this is an intended result of providing additional information to a routing process. The claims do not improve: GPS processor operation; routing algorithm efficiency; database retrieval operations; communications protocols; memory utilization; computational performance; or navigation hardware. Instead, the claims perform information-processing steps: receive historical information; analyze information; calculate risk values; modify information; transmit information; and use the information to determine routes. A declaration stating that an unconventional analysis method was useful does not establish that the claimed computer implementation improves technology. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and applying information remain abstract even when performed using computers. See: Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 850 F.3d 1332. Accordingly, Dr. Hauser's testimony does not establish eligibility.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that the Examiner asserts that Dr. Hauser’s declaration must be “commensurate in scope with the individual claims” and that addressing a “core concept” is insufficient (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 13-14 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the declaration need not address each limitation individually because all claims share a common inventive concept. This argument is not persuasive. The issue is not whether claims share a common theme, but whether the declaration establishes that the full scope of the claimed subject matter provides a technological improvement. The declaration focuses primarily on one particular implementation: converting risk scores into artificial length values. However, claims 1-20 encompass broader concepts involving: analyzing historical records; calculating risk metrics; assigning weights; generating scores; adjusting routing information; and transmitting information. The claims are not limited solely to a particular database architecture or particular artificial length implementation. The alleged improvement therefore arises from a narrow embodiment rather than the full scope of the claims. A declaration addressing only a preferred implementation does not establish eligibility for broader claims.
Argument #3:
(C). Applicant argues that the Examiner contends that Dr. Hauser's explanation that the invention "incorporates risk analysis into routing generation" describes a functional outcome rather than a specific technical implementation (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 14-15 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s Remarks, Examiner points out that Applicant improperly describes the desired result as the technical implementation. The claims recite: analyzing historical records; calculating risk metrics; applying weights; generating a composite score; modifying routing information and transmitting routing information. These steps represent the fundamental concept of: evaluating risk information and influencing route selection. The fact that these steps are performed on a remote server does not alter their character. A claim cannot avoid abstraction merely by stating that an abstract idea is performed: remotely; using a server; using a database and using communication networks. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected this approach. See: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, 765 F.3d 1350.
Applicant argues that the Examiner improperly characterizes the invention as a functional outcome rather than a technical implementation. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. The claims recite a desired result: providing risk-aware routing. The steps used to achieve this result are information-processing operations. The claimed sequence: analyze records; calculate metrics; apply weights; generate scores; modify values and transmit results is an information analysis workflow. The claims do not require: a new routing algorithm; a new GPS architecture; a new database structure and a new communication protocol. The use of a computer to perform the analysis does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The Supreme Court has explained that merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer is insufficient. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208. Applicant's characterization of the claims as a "technical architecture" merely restates the abstract information-processing steps using computer terminology.
Argument #4:
(D). Applicant argues that the Examiner asserts that sophisticated analysis does not equal technical improvement and that the declaration's description of concrete enhancement to GPS routing technology should be dismissed (see Applicant’s Remarks, Page 15 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner agrees that complexity alone does not establish eligibility. However, Applicant's argument relies heavily on the complexity of the risk assessment algorithm. The claimed invention does not improve GPS technology. Instead, it improves the accuracy of a route-selection decision by using additional information. Improving the quality of information used in a process is not equivalent to improving computer functionality. For example: a better medical diagnosis model does not improve the operation of a computer; a better financial prediction model does not improve database technology or a better routing model does not improve GPS hardware. The claims improve the decision-making output, not the underlying technology. This distinction separates the claims from: Enfish (improved database architecture) or McRO (improved animation generation rules).
Applicant argues that the invention should not be evaluated based on mathematical sophistication but rather the architectural implementation.
The argument is not persuasive. The alleged architectural improvement depends entirely on the output of the mathematical analysis. The invention begins with: damage records; historical data; probability calculations; risk metrics and weighting calculations. The resulting information is then used to influence routing decisions. Improving the quality or accuracy of information does not necessarily improve computer technology. For example: improved weather predictions do not improve weather computers; improved financial predictions do not improve financial servers; and improved route recommendations do not improve GPS processors. The claims improve the information available to a routing decision, not the technology performing the routing decision. Unlike Enfish, the claims do not recite an improved database structure. Unlike McRO, the claims do not improve a computer-generated process through specific technological rules. The claims merely use calculations to generate better information.
Argument #5:
(E). Applicant argues that the Examiner dismissed Dr. Hauser’s analysis of the technical progression from deterministic optimization to stochastic risk assessment as merely “an advancement in Operations Research and Mathematics” (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 15-16 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Applicant incorrectly attempts to characterize mathematical analysis as a technological improvement. The claimed risk calculations are the essence of the invention. The claims begin with: historical records; statistical analysis; probability calculations; weighting; and scoring. The remaining steps merely apply the resulting information. The Supreme Court has held that implementing mathematical concepts on generic computing systems does not create eligibility. See: Alice; Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 566 U.S. 66. The use of mathematical calculations to determine routing recommendations is precisely the type of abstract information-processing activity contemplated under § 101.
The Examiner does not contend that mathematical calculations are automatically ineligible. Rather, the claims are directed to applying mathematical analysis to a particular field: transportation routing. The abstract concept is not merely the mathematical equation itself, but the broader concept of: analyzing historical information to predict risk and influence decisions. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to information analysis remain abstract even when the analysis involves sophisticated algorithms. See: Electric Power Group. The claims do not transform the mathematical calculations into a technological improvement because the calculations merely produce information.
Argument #6:
(F). Applicant argues that Examiner characterizes that the claimed invention as merely “using generic computing elements” and asserts that “arranging generic components top perform a new business-logic sequence” does not create an inventive architecture (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 16-17 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Applicant improperly relies on the arrangement of generic components. The claimed elements are conventional: remote server; database; GPS device; communication network and routing algorithm. The claims do not recite a new computer architecture. They merely distribute known functions among conventional components. A claim directed to: "perform calculations on a server and send results to a client device" does not become eligible merely because the arrangement provides a useful result. Unlike BASCOM, there is no unconventional technical architecture. The components operate in their ordinary manner: server calculates information; database stores information and GPS device uses information.
Applicant relies on BASCOM and argues that the claimed arrangement of components is unconventional. The argument is not persuasive. Unlike BASCOM, where the claimed invention recited a specific unconventional network filtering architecture, the present claims merely arrange conventional components according to their expected functions. The claimed components include: remote server; database; GPS device; communication network and routing algorithm. Each component performs its ordinary function. The server: calculates information. The database stores information. The GPS device: receives information and executes routing. Combining computer components to perform an abstract process does not provide an inventive concept.
Argument #7:
(G). Applicant argues the Examiner contends that in points (G-H) that performing calculations on a remote server and transmitting results to a GPS device is “routine and conventional” cloud offloading, and that providing “enriched input” is “insignificant extra-solution activity” (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 17-18 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Applicant attempts to distinguish the invention from cloud computing by emphasizing "artificial length values." However, modifying input parameters supplied to a known algorithm is an abstract information manipulation technique. The claims do not alter the routing algorithm. The GPS device: receives input; processes input and generates routes. This is precisely the conventional operation of routing systems. The artificial length value is merely a data representation. Changing the representation of information does not necessarily improve computer functionality. See: Electric Power Group: "The claims focus on collecting, analyzing, and displaying information."
Applicant characterizes the modified routing database as a technical data structure improvement. The argument is not persuasive. A database storing different values is not equivalent to improving the database technology itself. Enfish involved a new database structure that changed the way data was organized and retrieved. Here, the database merely stores altered length values. The invention changes information content, not database functionality.
Applicant argues that the invention is not merely cloud offloading because artificial length values are used as a proxy for risk. The argument is not persuasive. The artificial length values represent manipulated information. The claims do not modify: how the GPS algorithm operates; how the GPS processor functions and how routing calculations are performed. Instead, the claims alter the inputs supplied to an existing process. Providing a computer with modified data does not necessarily improve computer functionality. For example: A computer receiving: traffic information; weather information; accident information and risk information continues operating in the same manner. The improvement is in the human-selected information used for the decision, not the computer technology. The claims therefore remain analogous to Electric Power Group, where collecting and analyzing information was insufficient for eligibility.
Argument #8:
(H). Applicant argues that the Examiner asserts that avoiding hardware/software upgrades in a “business benefit” rather than a technical improvement (see Applicant’s Remarks, Page 18 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Applicant improperly converts a business advantage into a technical improvement. The alleged advantage is: existing GPS systems can provide risk-based routing without modification. However, avoiding upgrades is an economic objective. The claims do not improve GPS technology; they merely avoid changing existing technology. The GPS device remains unchanged. The routing algorithm remains unchanged. The only modification is providing different values. A system does not become technically improved merely because it achieves a desired result without modifying existing components.
Avoiding modifications to existing technology is not itself a technological improvement.
The GPS device remains unchanged: same processor; same routing algorithm; same software and same hardware. The invention merely provides different input data. The benefit of avoiding upgrades is primarily economic: reduced implementation cost; easier deployment; and compatibility with existing systems. Such benefits do not establish eligibility.
Applicant characterizes the modified routing database as a technical data structure improvement. The argument is not persuasive. A database storing different values is not equivalent to improving the database technology itself. Enfish involved a new database structure that changed the way data was organized and retrieved. Here, the database merely stores altered length values. The invention changes information content, not database functionality.
Argument #9:
(I). Applicant argues that Examiner contends that “outsourcing logic is not a technical improvement” and that the GPS device’s “unawareness” of risk calculations confirms conventional use (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 18-19 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Applicant's reliance on "device unawareness" confirms the absence of a technological improvement. The GPS device performs exactly the same operation: receive route data; execute routing algorithm and generate route. The device has no knowledge of: risk; claims; probability and safety factors. Therefore, the invention does not improve GPS operation. It merely changes the information supplied to the GPS. This is analogous to providing a person with better information before making a decision. The decision process itself remains unchanged.
The fact that the GPS device is unaware of the risk calculation demonstrates that the GPS device performs no new operation. The device: receives values; executes the routing algorithm; and generates a route. The alleged improvement occurs before the GPS device receives the information. Accordingly, the claimed invention does not improve GPS operation. It merely prepares information for use by a system.
Avoiding modifications to existing technology is not itself a technological improvement. The GPS device remains unchanged: same processor; same routing algorithm; same software and same hardware. The invention merely provides different input data. The benefit of avoiding upgrades is primarily economic: reduced implementation cost; easier deployment and compatibility with existing systems. Such benefits do not establish eligibility.
Argument #10:
(J). Applicant argues that the Examiner characterizes the invention as an “entrepreneurial improving solution” rather than a “technological improving solution” asserting that the sophistication described by Dr. Hauser is merely an advancement in “Operations Research and Mathematics” (see Applicant’s Remarks, Pages 19-20 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, the Examiner does not contend that commercially useful inventions cannot be patent eligible. Rather, the issue is whether the claimed advance is technological. Here, the advance is: determining routes using additional risk information. That is an improvement in the quality of a decision, not an improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to the application of analytical techniques to transportation risk. The computer merely performs the calculations faster and more efficiently than a human.
Applicant argues that the GPS device's lack of awareness demonstrates innovation. The Examiner disagrees. The fact that the GPS device is unaware of the risk calculation demonstrates that the GPS device performs no new operation. The device: receives values; executes the routing algorithm and generates a route. The alleged improvement occurs before the GPS device receives the information. Accordingly, the claimed invention does not improve GPS operation.
It merely prepares information for use by a conventional system.
Applicant argues that the Examiner creates an improper distinction between commercial and technological improvements. The Examiner agrees that commercial benefits do not automatically negate eligibility. However, the claimed advance must still be technological.
Here, the alleged improvement is: using risk information to select better routes. This improves a transportation decision. It does not improve: computer architecture; GPS functionality; database technology and communication technology. The computer is merely used as a tool to implement an abstract decision-making process.
Argument #11:
(K). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon under revised step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages of 20-24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific technical architecture. The argument is not persuasive. The claims recite multiple abstract concepts. Mathematical Concepts: The claims require: calculating odds ratios; calculating risk metrics; applying weights and generating composite scores. These are mathematical relationships. The claims do not apply mathematics to improve a computer; they apply mathematics to improve routing decisions. Mental Processes: The claimed process can be performed by humans: A transportation analyst could: review accident records; calculate risk; rank roads; assign risk factors and recommend safer routes. The computer merely automates this activity. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities: The claims manage transportation decisions by determining route preferences based on risk. The claims therefore relate to organizing human travel activity.
In response to Applicant’s arguments here, Examiner breaks down each of the following claim limitations and factors each additional elements shown individually and as an ordered combination in view with the claim limitations shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 for step 2a prong 1 under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. Examiner notes that the first step shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of “uploading historical records to a remove server…” recites the collection and transmission of data. The USPTO classifies "collecting and analyzing information" as a mental process because it can be performed by humans. Furthermore, organizing "historical records" for business purposes falls under a method of organizing human activity. Here, the abstract idea grouping is Mental Processes (specifically data collection/storage) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The second step of “analyzing the historical records on the remove server using the RAA, wherein analyzing the historical records comprises instructing the RAA to rank each road segment based on a total claim amount in a damage account and a total shipment value amount in a damage-free account to produce a preliminary risk metric for each road segment” recites an abstract idea of comparison and business evaluation. Here, the “ranking” is interpreted as an evaluative judgment. Comparing damage accounts against shipment values to create a "preliminary risk metric" is a mental exercise in evaluation. Furthermore, analyzing insurance-style "claims" and "shipment values" is a fundamental economic practice (risk management), which is a method of organizing human activity. Here, the abstract idea grouping is Mental Processes (specifically data collection/storage) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thirdly, the step of “tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) for each road segment in the traveled routes, wherein at least some of the KPIs are received by the one or more remote clients” recites an abstract idea of monitoring and observation. Here, this is interpreted as "Tracking" performance indicators involves observation and data monitoring. In 2025, courts and the USPTO continue to treat the act of monitoring or observing data points as a mental process, even if performed on a server, because it mimics human observation. Here, the abstract idea grouping is Mental Processes. Next, the step of “calculating odd ratios for each road segment based at least in part on some of the tracked KPIs…” recites an abstract idea of a mathematical relationship: "expressed as a ratio between a bad outcome... and a good outcome." Mathematical formulas, ratios, and the calculation of relationships between variables are the core of this “Mathematical Concepts” category. Moreover, the step of “deriving road risk and road probability metrics for each road segment from the preliminary risk metrics, the KPIs, and the odd ratios” recites an abstract idea of deriving "probability metrics" from existing data (KPIs, ratios, and preliminary metrics) which is a mathematical derivation or statistical calculation. Under the August 2025 AI Guidance Update, using statistical models to generate probability values is considered to be classified under the “Mathematical Concept” category. The 6th step of “applying a weight to each of the derived road risk and road probability metrics, wherein the weight is provided by a trained machine learning (ML) model and/or the one or more remote clients” recites an abstract idea of a numerical adjustment for applying a weight. Here, this is a mathematical operation (multiplying or adjusting a value by a coefficient). Input from remote clients: Decisions or weights provided by "clients" represent human judgment, which falls under mental processes. ML Model: While the underlying ML training might be technical, the "application of a weight" in a risk algorithm is viewed as a mathematical step in the calculation chain.
Moreover, the step of “Combining weighted metrics into a composite risk score (CRS)” recites a mathematical calculation—combining weighted values (multiplication and addition) to produce a single numerical "score." Under current guidance, such quantitative derivations are considered mathematical concepts. While determining if a score is "low-risk" or "high-risk" could be seen as a mental evaluation, the primary nature of this step is mathematical. The step of “adjusting road segment lengths in a database by artificially altering values...” recites an abstract idea of comparing a CRS value to a "threshold value" which is a mental judgment or evaluation. Additionally, through manipulation, the phrase “Artificially altering length values" is a data manipulation step. While it interacts with a "routing database," the act of changing a value based on a logical comparison (if X > threshold, then increase Y) is a mental process that can be performed via simple logic or pen and paper. The step of “Biasing a routing algorithm by using artificial values as input…” recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Economic/Business Practice). The intent—biasing an outcome—is a method of organizing activity (risk-based routing). The technique of using "artificially reduced/increased length values" is a logical "trick" or rule of thumb used to influence a result without changing the underlying algorithm. Courts often classify such high-level logical strategies as abstract. Furthermore, the step of “Transmitting adjusted length information to a remote device…” recites an abstract idea of mental processes specifically (data transmission). This is characterized as "insignificant extra-solution activity" or the mere transmission of data. The USPTO views the communication of results as part of the overall abstract process of "collecting and analyzing information". Next, the step of “Using received adjusted length as input to a routing algorithm…” recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes and Methods of Organizing Human Activity. This step describes the use of data by a generic device. Providing "input parameters" to an existing algorithm is a standard data-processing step. Under 2025 guidance, "using" information for a business purpose (safe transport) falls under organizing human activity. Lastly, the step of “Providing routing options to a user based on adjusted information…” recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes (Observation/Communication). Examiner notes that presenting information to a user ("providing options") is a way of displaying results. This is considered a mental process (a human can present options to another human) or simply an abstract method of providing information.
With respect to the argument that amended Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 cannot be performed/executed by the human mind”, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (III) (C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” “For instance, the Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Specification and determined that the claimed invention is described as concepts that are performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0083]: “A hardware module may also include programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations.”) or 2) in a computer environment (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0085]: “The one or more processors may also operate to support performance of the relevant operations in a “cloud computing” environment or as a “software as a service” (SaaS).”), or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform these concepts.” Also, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) III (B): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., such as “obtaining first/second site data from the second site APIs”) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Thus, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-20 of the instant application still recite a mental process.
In conclusion, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas under “Mental Processes” or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” or “Mathematical Concepts” Groupings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A Prong 1.
Argument #12:
(L). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages of 20-24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has not identified a technological improvement. The claims do not improve: GPS technology; routing algorithms; databases and computer networks. The alleged improvement is the information produced. However, information itself is not a technological improvement. The artificial length values merely encode risk information into another format. Encoding information differently does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to a specific technological method for improving computer routing algorithms through an unconventional parameter manipulation technique. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The step of “Combining metrics into a Composite Risk Score (CRS)…” in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 is a Mathematical Concept. Integration Failure: This is a "mathematical derivation" that does not go beyond the abstract idea itself. Calculating a score is the starting point of the analysis; it does not solve a technological problem or improve computer functionality. It is considered "mere data manipulation." This step is a "mere instruction to apply" a mathematical formula to specific data. It does not provide a technological solution; it simply calculates a result. In 2025, generating a score is viewed as the abstract idea itself, not an integration of it.
Secondly, the step of “Artificially altering length values in a routing database…” is a Mental Process (Logical comparison and data substitution). Integration Failure: While this step suggests a "trick" to influence a routing algorithm, it does not actually improve the algorithm or the database. In 2025, the Federal Circuit has consistently held that using "artificial" data to trick a generic system is not a technological improvement. It is a logical rule that could be performed manually (e.g., a human drawing a "shortcut" on a map to encourage a specific path). It does not change how the computer processes data; it only changes what data is being processed. Mere Instructions to Apply: The instruction to "adjust" a value based on a "threshold" is a basic logical rule. No Technical Improvement: The claim explicitly states this is done "without modifying the routing algorithm." This admission confirms that the computer's functionality is not improved; it is being used in a way to process "fake" data. Limited Field of Use: Restricting the application to a "routing database" for "transporting goods" is a field-of-use limitation that does not save an abstract idea from ineligibility.
Third, the step of “Biasing a routing algorithm "without modifying the algorithm" this is a Method of Organizing Human Activity (Risk Management Strategy). Integration Failure: The claim explicitly admits that the underlying routing technology is not modified. Integration into a practical application requires a technological improvement. By stating the algorithm remains unchanged, the claim confirms it is merely using a generic computer tool for its intended purpose (routing) to execute a business strategy (risk-averse transit).
Fourth, the step of “Transmitting and receiving adjusted length information via a network…” is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity under MPEP § 2106.05 (g). Integration Failure: Reciting "transmission," "network," and "receiving" involve well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, simply moving data from a server to a client device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. It is merely a "link to a technological environment."
Generic Components: Using a "remote server," "network," and "GPS-enabled device" refers to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer hardware.
Data Transmission: Transmitting and receiving data is the definition of "insignificant extra-solution activity" because it merely moves the abstract idea from one location to another without providing a technological advancement.
Fifth, the step of “Using adjusted lengths as "input parameters" to a routing algorithm…”. Integration Failure: This step describes the standard operation of any routing algorithm—taking inputs to generate an output. It does not provide a "specific implementation" that changes the way the GPS device functions at a technical level. Lastly, the step of “Providing routing options to a user” is a Mental Process (Communication of information). Integration Failure: Providing information for a human to review is "mere output." It does not produce a technical effect. The USPTO 2024 AI Guidance Update emphasizes that displaying the results of an abstract analysis to a user is not an integration into a practical application.
This is a "mere instruction to apply" the judicial exception (the artificial lengths) to a generic computer process (routing). Under the Alice/Mayo framework, specifying that an abstract idea is used as "input" for a computer does not provide a practical application.
Lastly, the step of “Providing routing options to a user based on the adjusted information” recites Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity: Displaying or "providing" the result of an abstract analysis to a user is merely an output step. Limited Field of Use: Providing "routing options" is a specific application in the field of navigation, but as established in Recentive v. Fox (2025), limiting an abstract idea to a specific commercial environment does not constitute an "inventive concept" or a practical application.
Applicant argues that the Invention Solves a Technical Problem Specific to GPS Routing Systems (see Applicant Remarks, Page 21 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rebuttal to Dr. Hauser's argument that "remote processing" and "length adjustment" solve a technological problem. Functional Outsourcing is Not a Technical Improvement. Dr. Hauser argues that existing devices require upgrades to perform analysis, and remote cloud processing solves this. Under current 2025 guidance, performing calculations on a remote server that a local device cannot perform is a logistical arrangement, not a technological improvement to the device itself. In Recentive (2025), the Federal Circuit held that simply using a more powerful computer (the cloud) to perform an abstract analysis and sending the result back to a generic device (the GPS) is a routine and conventional application of generic hardware. It does not modify the internal technical operation or efficiency of the GPS device. "Enriched Input" is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The argument claims that transmitting "length adjusted information" that GPS devices can process "as-is" extends their functionality. Feeding "artificial" or "enriched" data into a conventional algorithm is categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity. By admitting the GPS processes this data "as-is," the declaration confirms that the routing algorithm is not modified. The device is performing its standard, conventional function (calculating routes based on numerical inputs), just with different values. Under Recentive (2025), merely "biasing" a conventional system with abstractly derived scores does not constitute a practical application. Solving a Business Problem, Not a Technical One. The argument asserts this solves a "real-world problem" of transportation safety. A technological improvement under § 101 must solve a technical problem (e.g., reduced CPU cycles, data path optimization, or improved signal handling). Transportation safety and cargo risk are economic and business-related problems. In Desjardins (2025), claims were eligible because they provided concrete technical benefits like "reduced storage requirements" and "lowered system complexity". The claim limitations of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application lack such technical benchmarks, focusing instead on the output of a risk strategy. Moreover, the features of Cloud Offloading -> Categorized as routine/conventional use of generic hardware. "As-Is" Data Override -> Confirms the GPS tool is unimproved; it only reflects better data content. Extended Functionality -> Represents a functional goal in a business field (logistics), not an inventive concept. Real-World Problem -> Identifying a non-technical problem (risk) does not create eligibility.
In conclusion, Examiner points out that the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration fails because it does not identify a change to the computer's architecture or data structure that improves performance. Under Recentive (2025), "delineating how the technology itself is improved" is mandatory; merely applying machine learning or cloud-based analytics to a known problem is insufficient.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here, Examiner discloses that the "Problem" is Economic/Logistical, Not Technological. The argument asserts the invention solves a "technological problem in GPS routing." A technological problem must relate to the computer's performance, such as signal acquisition latency or hardware-level memory management. The "problem" addressed by these steps is transportation risk management—reducing the financial and physical damage to goods. In 2025, the USPTO and Federal Circuit (e.g., Recentive v. Fox (2025)) distinguish between a business goal achieved through software and a technological improvement to the computer itself. Because the "solution" is a risk-assessment strategy, it remains an abstract "method of organizing human activity." Point #2: "Non-Conventional" Solution vs. Abstract Rules. The argument claims the solution is "specific and non-conventional." Under Step 2B, a solution is only "non-conventional" if it provides an inventive concept that improves the technical functioning of the computer. Using "odd ratios," "KPIs," and "preliminary risk metrics" represents the application of mathematical concepts and mental processes to a new data set. Applying complex mathematics to historical data does not make the implementation "technical" if it is executed on generic servers and client devices. Point #3: Machine Learning as a Generic Tool. The argument suggests the "additional elements" (like the ML model) contribute to a practical application. The August 2025 USPTO Guidance clarifies that reciting a "trained machine learning model" without specifying an improvement to the ML architecture or training process itself is treated as a generic computer component. Since the ML model is used conventionally to provide "weights" for a risk score, it does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
The Step 2B analysis is sufficient because the "technical substance" described consists of abstract logical steps (the RAA) implemented on conventional hardware. Without a technical innovation in the computer's operation, the claim does not provide an inventive concept that goes "significantly more" than the abstract idea of risk assessment.
Applicant argues that the Claims are Analogous to SiRF Tech, Not Electric Power Group (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 21-22 of 24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first reason pertains to a fundamental difference: mathematical improvement vs. “algorithmic tricks”. In SiRF Tech, the claims were held eligible because they provided a tangible technological advancement in the way a GPS receiver calculates absolute position, enabling it to operate even in "weak-signal environments". SiRF Tech: The invention improved the internal technical capability of the GPS receiver itself by calculating "pseudo-ranges" and predicting ephemeris data. These steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application do not improve how the GPS hardware or its routing algorithm functions. Instead, they artificially manipulate input data (altering length values) to "bias" a generic routing algorithm toward a business-driven outcome (low risk). Using "artificially increased/reduced length values" is a logical "trick" to influence a result without changing the technology of the algorithm itself. Reason #2: Analysis of Specific Steps (Step 2A Prong 1): Under current 2025 guidance, each of your steps is categorized as an abstract idea rather than a technological solution: For example; combine into CRS -> Mathematical Concept -> Calculating a composite score through weighting is a mathematical relationship. Adjust Segment Length -> Mental Process -> Comparing a score to a "threshold" and substituting values is a logic task humans can perform. Biasing Algorithm -> Method of Organizing Human Activity -> Biasing a route for risk management is a fundamental business practice, not a technical improvement to navigation. Transmitting Data -> Mental Process / Insignificant Activity - > Mere transmission of data to a generic device is considered "insignificant extra-solution activity". Reason #3: Lack of a "Particular Machine" Tie-In: In SiRF Tech, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the methods "could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver" because they were inextricably tied to the physics of satellite signals. The method of the instant application for example uses a GPS device merely as a conduit to display information. The "biasing" occurs on a remote server before the data reaches the device. Because the core "invention" is the manipulation of data values, it could theoretically be performed by a human adjusting travel times on a paper map. Federal Circuit precedent in 2025 emphasizes that performing abstract steps on a generic computer (or GPS device) does not save a claim from ineligibility. Reason #4: Failure to Delineate the "How" (Functional Claiming). Recent 2025 rulings (e.g., Recentive v. Fox (Fed. Cir. 2025)) state that claims describing what a machine learning model does (e.g., "dynamically adjusting" or "biasing") without delineating how it improves the model's underlying technical architecture are ineligible. It "biases" a routing algorithm "without modifying the routing algorithm." This is functional claiming of an outcome—achieving a safe route—rather than a technical improvement to the way data is processed or signals are acquired.
Thus, in conclusion, unlike SiRF Tech, which improved the physics and mathematics of signal acquisition, these steps particularly recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 describe a method of data management and business risk assessment implemented on generic hardware. Under the 2025 Alice framework, these are abstract ideas that do not provide a "tangible technological advancement". Therefore, Claims 1-20 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and non-analogous to the court case of SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Moreover, the steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application for example; do not solve a technical problem in the field of GPS technology (like signal acquisition or battery efficiency); instead, they solve a business problem (transportation risk). Because the claim relies on "artificial" data inputs to an unmodified algorithm, it is "directed to" an abstract idea without a practical application under step 2a prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application. Examiner maintains that the claims are still patent ineligible under step 2a prong 2 of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Argument #13:
(M). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Pages of 23-24, dated 07/07/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Examiner refers Applicant to Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis section (e.g., Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section shown below) shown for step 2B particularly for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions, because they are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exceptions. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP § 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in these claims with the abstract idea which include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, (2) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and providing the results to the user on a computer, and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Moreover, Examiner submits that the question of novelty and non-obviousness evidence (application of prior art) is not relevant to the question of determining whether the claims as constructed contain an inventive concept. Lastly, Examiner cites the case of (Two-Way Media v. Comcast, (Fed. Cir. 2017)) and the District Court from this case concluded that “the proffered materials are irrelevant to the § 101 motion for judgment on the pleadings. None of the proffered materials addresses a § 101 challenge to claims of the asserted patents. The novelty and non-obviousness of the claims under §§ 102 and 103 does not bear on whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. . . . Because the proffered materials are irrelevant to the instant § 101 issue, I have not considered them.” The appeal to Federal Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling that “eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries”.
Examiner refers Applicant to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) court case noting that: “But the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. At Step two, we “search for an ‘inventive concept’… that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). But this simply restates what we have already determined is an abstract idea. At Alice step two, it is irrelevant whether considering historical usage information while inputting data may have been non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter. As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add “significantly more” to it. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC. No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, in conclusion, Applicant’s suggestion that specific limitations (or the claimed invention as a whole) must be shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional to support the conclusion of subject matter ineligibility for 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 is not persuasive.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15: The additional element of a “machine learning (ML)” in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. For example; see US PG Pub (US 2020/0056892 A1) – “Road Segment Similarity Determination”, hereinafter Haque. See Haque at ¶ [0073]: “The system 960 may use machine-learning, such as neural networks, regression algorithms, instance-based algorithms (e.g., k-Nearest Neighbor), decision-tree algorithms, Bayesian algorithms, clustering algorithms, association-rule-learning algorithms, deep-learning algorithms, dimensionality-reduction algorithms, ensemble algorithms, and any other suitable machine-learning algorithms known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. The machine-learning models may be trained using any suitable training algorithm, including supervised learning based on labeled training data, unsupervised learning based on unlabeled training data, and semi-supervised learning based on a mixture of labeled and unlabeled training data.”
With respect to reliance on (e.g., “remote GPS-enabled device” & “routing database” & “risk assessment algorithm (RAA)” & “routing algorithm” & “its routing algorithm”) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: a limited to a particular field of use or technological environment for receiving information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis to data regarding selectively adjusting a length of each road segment defined as low-risk and/or each road segment defined as high-risk based on its corresponding CRS for mitigating routing risks during transportation of goods in the inventory management and risk mitigation field(s) (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)). With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning”) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to the following: Under the August 2025 USPTO AI Guidance Update, using a generic ML model to provide weights is considered an application of the technology. These claims do not disclose a technical improvement to the ML model's training process or architecture itself.
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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Moreover, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19: The additional element of a “remote GPS-enable device” in Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. For example; see US PG Pub (US 2003/0135304 A1) – “System and Method for Managing Transportation Assets”, hereinafter Sroub. See Sroub at ¶ [0037]: “This data can be transmitted to a remote processing system. Additionally, the unit on the vehicle may contain a display system that displays mapping information similar to that found in conventional GPS systems, which can accept information resulting from the analysis by the remote processing system.” For example; see US PG Pub (US 2018/0201263 A1) – “Route Risk Mitigation”, hereinafter Slusar. See Slusar at ¶ [0027]: “Similarly, a personal navigation device 110 (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS), geographic information system (GIS), satellite navigation system, mobile device, vehicle autonomous driving system, other location tracking device, etc.) may communicate with the computing device 102.” See Slusar at ¶ [0052]: “For example, an enhanced GPS unit may display a route (or segment of a route) in a red color to designate a high-risk route, and a route may be displayed in a green color to designate a lower risk route. At least one benefit of a predetermined category for the route risk value is that it may be used as the means for comparing the amount of risk associated with each travel route when providing alternate routes. In addition, the enhanced GPS unit may alert the driver of a high-risk road segment and offer the driver an incentive (e.g., monetary incentive, points, etc.) for avoiding that segment”. Also see Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0073] defines that the “GPS” is “standard” or “generic” -> “The routing options of method 100 are fed to a standard GPS unit for the application of the standard shortest distance and traffic information algorithms.” Also, at Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0074]: “GPS device 510 can be a smart phone device, a tablet personal computer, or any suitable electronic device connected to network 515 and configured to run GPS navigation applications.”
Examiner notes that the step of “combining metrics into a CRS and adjusting road lengths” shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application recites an abstract idea of Mathematical calculation and a mental process of evaluation/substitution. Why it Fails Step 2B: The additional elements described are generic computing components ("routing database," "remote server") and data processing techniques (comparison, assignment of values). These elements are used in their routine manner. Merely using a generic computer to perform a logical step (if CRS > threshold, change length) is not "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. There is no improvement to the database or server technology. The step of “Biasing a routing algorithm without modifying the algorithm” recites an abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity (risk management strategy). Why it Fails Step 2B: This is the most crucial failure point. The claim explicitly states the "additional element" (the algorithm) is unmodified and used conventionally. An inventive concept requires more than just applying an abstract idea in a specific business context. The absence of a technical improvement to the routing process itself means the claim does not amount to "significantly more." Thirdly, the step of “Transmitting adjusted length information to a remote GPS-enabled device” recites an abstract idea of an Insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission). Why it Fails Step 2B: The "remote GPS-enabled device" and "network" are conventional computing environments. Transmitting data between generic components via a network is a routine and conventional activity that does not provide an "inventive concept." The data transfer is merely a link to a technological environment, not an inventive integration of the abstract idea. Lastly, the steps of “Using received data as input and providing routing options” recites an abstract idea of Mental processes (data processing and communication). Why it Fails Step 2B: The claim describes the GPS device performing its intended function—receiving input and generating an output. This is a "mere instruction to apply" the abstract idea. There is no showing that the GPS device is programmed to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve a technical advantage (e.g., faster signal processing, less power consumption).
In summary, the steps of “Calculate CRS/Adjust Lengths” does not pass step 2B due to using generic computers in a way to perform a simple logical/mathematical task. Biasing w/o Modification does not pass step 2B due to Explicitly confirms no technical improvement to the core algorithm technology. The step of “Transmit/Receive Data” is both insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP § 2106.05 (g) and WURC activity under MPEP § 2106.05 (d) ii and is corroborated via the following: See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Lastly, the step of “Use as Input/Provide Options” does not pass step 2B due to Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic inputs/outputs.
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-20 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are each focused to a statutory category namely a “method” or a “process” (Claims 1-8), an “apparatus” or a “system” (Claims 9-14), and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” or “an article of manufacture” (Claims 15-20). We proceed onto analyzing the claims with respect to Step 2A Prong 1 shown below.
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claim 1, 9 and 15 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except where strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 9);
“” (see Independent Claim 15);
“uploading historical records for transported goods, wherein is operable to run a risk assessment and receive input by , and wherein the historical records comprise traveled routes with associated road segments, value of the transported goods, value of damaged goods, types of the transported goods, and quantity of goods damaged” (see Independent Claims 1 and 15);
“receive historical records for transported goods, wherein is operable to run a risk assessment and receive input for the RAA , and wherein the historical records comprise traveled routes with associated road segments, value of the transported goods, value of damaged goods, types of the transported goods, and quantity of goods damaged” (see Independent Claim 9);
“analyzing the historical records , wherein analyzing the historical records comprises instructing :” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“rank each road segment based on a total claim amount in a damage account and a total shipment value amount in a damage-free account to produce a preliminary risk metric for each road segment” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“track key performance indicators (KPIs) for each road segment in the traveled routes, wherein at least some of the KPIs are received ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“calculate odd ratios for each road segment based at least in-part one some of the tracked KPIS, wherein the odds ratios are being expressed as a ratio between a bad outcome attributed to a damage and a good outcome attribute to a non-damage for each road segment” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“derive road risk and road probability metrics for each road segment from the preliminary risk metric, the KPIs, and the odd ratios” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“apply a weight to each of the derived road risk and road probability metrics, wherein the weight is provided by a trained model ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“combine, for each road segment on each travelled route, the weighted road risk and road probability metrics into a composite risk score (CRS) that determines whether a road segment is low-risk or high-risk for transporting goods” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“adjust a length of each road segment by writing modified length values wherein road segments with a CRS value below a threshold value are assigned artificially reduced length values compared to their actual physical length values and road segments with a CRS value above the threshold value are assigned artificially increased length values compared to their actual physical length values, thereby biasing a running towards road segments with artificially reduced length values without modifying ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“transmitting adjusted length information for each road segment as calculated running is operable to:” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“receive the adjusted length information calculated by ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“use the received adjusted length information as input parameters ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15);
“provide routing options to a user operating based at least on the received adjusted length information ” (see Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15).
Here, for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, these claim limitation steps are directed to the abstract idea of the mathematical evaluation of transportation risk using statistical calculations and scoring, with the risk classification aspect potentially falling within the mental processes grouping. The remaining computer, networking, database, and GPS limitations are generally treated as additional elements rather than judicial exceptions at Prong One.
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite abstract ideas primarily in the form of mathematical concepts (ranking, odds ratios, probability calculations, weighting, and composite risk scoring), with additional mental processes (risk classification) and, secondarily, certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial transportation logistics).
Mathematical Concepts: ranking, odds ratios, risk metrics, probability metrics, weighting, and composite risk scoring. Mental Processes: evaluating and classifying roadway segments. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (secondary): transportation logistics and shipment routing.
These overarching concepts are implemented through specific steps that fall into the following categories: Mathematical Concepts such as Calculating Odd Ratios: The instruction to calculate "a ratio between a bad outcome... and a good outcome" is a specific mathematical calculation. Deriving Probability Metrics: Deriving "road risk and road probability metrics" involves mathematical operations to produce numerical values from data variables. Applying Weights: Applying a numerical weight provided by an ML model is a mathematical operation (weighting/multiplication) of data. Combining Metrics into a CRS: The step of combining "weighted road risk and road probability metrics" into a single score is a mathematical calculation and the expression of a mathematical relationship. Also, numerical adjustments: The systematic "altering [of] length values" based on a threshold-to-CRS relationship is a mathematical operation are categorized under the “Mathematical Concepts” category.
Secondly, for Mental Processes grouping Ranking/Evaluation: "Ranking each road segment based on a total claim amount" is an evaluative judgment based on a comparison of numerical values. Tracking KPIs: Tracking and observing performance indicators (data collection) is a mental process that has historically been viewed as "collecting and analyzing information." Analyzing Records: The high-level instruction to "analyze historical records" to reach a conclusion is a cognitive function. Evaluating Risk (Low-risk vs. High-risk): Determining whether a segment is "low-risk or high-risk" is a qualitative evaluation and judgment based on numerical data and Logical Comparisons: Comparing a CRS value to a "threshold value" to decide which artificial length to assign is a logical "if-then" process that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper are categorized under the “Mental Processes” category.
Thirdly, for the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping, see Risk Management: Assessing the safety of transporting goods is a fundamental economic and business practice (risk analysis) and Biasing Behavior/Outcomes: Using "artificial" data to influence a routing outcome is a strategic method of managing the activity of logistics and transport and moreover the entire process—ranking insurance-style claims, evaluating damage accounts, and assessing the value of transported goods—are fundamental economic practices in the field of risk assessment and logistics management, which are therefore categorized under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” category.
Thus, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (3) managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (4) fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” such as (5) mathematical calculations or (6) mathematical relationships.
That is, other than reciting (e.g., “one or more clients” & “network” & “remote server” & “remote GPS-enabled device” & “routing database” & “risk assessment algorithm (RAA)” & “its routing algorithm” & “routing algorithm” “a computer readable program code”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” & “one or more processors”, etc…), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (1) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen and paper as a physical aid, and additionally or alternatively as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (3) managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (4) fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” such as (5) mathematical calculations or (6) mathematical relationships.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “one or more clients” & “network” & “remote server” & “non-transitory computer-readable medium” & “one or more processors”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Merely executing an algorithm on a remote server does not transform an abstract idea into a technical solution.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning”) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 due to the following: Under the August 2025 USPTO AI Guidance Update, using a generic ML model to provide weights is considered an application of the technology. These claims do not disclose a technical improvement to the ML model's training process or architecture itself. Moreover, these additional elements such as (e.g., “remote GPS-enabled device” & “routing database” & “risk assessment algorithm (RAA)” & “routing algorithm” & “its routing algorithm”) in view of the claim limitations of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 when factored individually and as an ordered combination are a limited to a particular field of use or technological environment for receiving information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis to data regarding selectively adjusting a length of each road segment defined as low-risk and/or each road segment defined as high-risk based on its corresponding CRS for mitigating routing risks during transportation of goods in the inventory management and risk mitigation field(s) (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)).
The Nature of the Integration is "Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity". Data Gathering/Outputting: "Uploading" records and "receiving input" are data-gathering steps. The analysis produces metrics that are the output of the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly ruled that mere data gathering or outputting is insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere Instructions to Apply: The steps are essentially instructions to apply mathematical formulas ("calculate odd ratios") and logical rules ("rank each road segment") to a data set. This is a "mere instruction to apply a judicial exception" that does not provide a practical application. Limiting the abstract idea of risk assessment to the specific field of "transported goods" and "road segments" is a field-of-use limitation that does not confer eligibility under § 101.
The integration described is insufficient to transform the abstract idea (risk assessment and data manipulation) into a technical application. Without Modifying the Routing Algorithm": This is a fatal admission under § 101. By stating that the underlying technology is unchanged and used "as-is" with different inputs, the claims explicitly confirm that no technological improvement has occurred. The device is still running its algorithm in a certain way. The steps involve "mere data manipulation" (altering length values in a database) and "insignificant extra-solution activity" (transmitting the results over a network and displaying them to a user). These activities do not impose "meaningful limits" on the abstract idea beyond linkage to a generic technological environment. Mere Instructions to Apply: The steps amount to instructions for applying logical and mathematical rules (comparing to a threshold, assigning artificial values) using computer resources. Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 recites additional elements directed to: (e.g., “one or more clients” & “routing database” & “network” & “remote server” & “non-transitory computer-readable medium” & “one or more processors”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (e.g., see at least Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0074]: “By way of example and not limitation, GPS device 510 can be a smart phone device, a tablet personal computer, or any suitable electronic device connected to network 515 and configured to run GPS navigation applications. By way of example and not limitation, network 208 can be a mobile network, a public network, or any suitable network that allows server 505 to communicate information to GPS device 510.” See also Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0083]: “A hardware module may also include programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processor) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations.”).
Examiner notes that for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, the Remote Server and Network: Using a server and network for data processing and transmission is a routine computer activity. Simply performing an abstract idea faster or remotely does not make it eligible. Uploading/Receiving Input: These are standard data-gathering steps considered "insignificant extra-solution activity" by the Federal Circuit. Historical Records Database: Storing and retrieving data is a fundamental and routine function of any computer database. These claims do not disclose a technical improvement to the ML process itself (e.g., how the model is trained or its architecture is improved). The Lack of a Technical Solution to a Technical Problem. An "inventive concept" must solve a technical problem in computer science or provide a physical transformation of matter. The problem addressed is transportation risk and cargo damage, which is an economic/logistical problem. The solution uses generic computers to apply an abstract algorithm. The claims do not solve a technical problem of computer functioning, such as improving server efficiency, optimizing data transfer speed, or enhancing processor speed.
Furthermore, regarding certain/ particular claim limitations recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, reflects “mere data gathering” & “mere data outputting or mere data transmitting” (e.g., “receiving the adjusted length information calculated by the RAA on the remote server via the network”) are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activity (WURC), and are also mere data gathering reflective of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the step of (e.g., “transmitting adjusted length information for each road segment as calculated by the RAA to a remote GPS-enabled device communicatively coupled to the remote server via the network…” & “provide routing options to a user operating the remote GPS-enabled device based at least on the received adjusted length information from the remote server”) in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activity (WURC), and are also mere data outputting reflective of insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15: The additional element of a “machine learning (ML)” in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. For example; see US PG Pub (US 2020/0056892 A1) – “Road Segment Similarity Determination”, hereinafter Haque. See Haque at ¶ [0073]: “The system 960 may use machine-learning, such as neural networks, regression algorithms, instance-based algorithms (e.g., k-Nearest Neighbor), decision-tree algorithms, Bayesian algorithms, clustering algorithms, association-rule-learning algorithms, deep-learning algorithms, dimensionality-reduction algorithms, ensemble algorithms, and any other suitable machine-learning algorithms known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. The machine-learning models may be trained using any suitable training algorithm, including supervised learning based on labeled training data, unsupervised learning based on unlabeled training data, and semi-supervised learning based on a mixture of labeled and unlabeled training data.”
With respect to reliance on (e.g., “remote GPS-enabled device” & “routing database” & “risk assessment algorithm (RAA)” & “routing algorithm” & “its routing algorithm”) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15, when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: a limited to a particular field of use or technological environment for receiving information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis to data regarding selectively adjusting a length of each road segment defined as low-risk and/or each road segment defined as high-risk based on its corresponding CRS for mitigating routing risks during transportation of goods in the inventory management and risk mitigation field(s) (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)). With respect to reliance on (e.g., “machine learning”) as additional elements shown in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due to the following: Under the August 2025 USPTO AI Guidance Update, using a generic ML model to provide weights is considered an application of the technology. These claims do not disclose a technical improvement to the ML model's training process or architecture itself.
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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 recite additional elements such as (e.g., “routing algorithm” & “remote GPS-enable device” & “RAA”), when considered in conjunction with the limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole), recite the same abstract idea as Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 along with further steps/details that (1) can be performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (2) using pen to paper as a “physical aid”, therefore falling under the “Mental Processes” Grouping and (3) also “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” Grouping which pertains to managing personal behavior (including teachings or following rules or instructions) or (4) fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” such as (5) mathematical calculations or (6) mathematical relationships.
Dependent Claims 3, 7-8, 11 and 17 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15. Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20: With respect to reliance on (e.g., “routing algorithm” & “remote GPS-enable device” & “RAA”) as additional elements shown in Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) in view of these claim limitations, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) a limited to a particular field of use or technological environment for receiving information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis to data regarding selectively adjusting a length of each road segment defined as low-risk and/or each road segment defined as high-risk based on its corresponding CRS for mitigating routing risks during transportation of goods in the inventory management and risk mitigation field(s) (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)).
The Dependent Claims are further analyzed in-detail collectively below because they all share a common legal failure under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claim 2: Claim 2 recites that the routing algorithm prioritizes road segments with artificially reduced length values while ignoring their actual physical length values. Claim 2 adds that the routing algorithm prioritizes road segments having artificially reduced length values while ignoring actual physical lengths. This limitation merely specifies how the results of the mathematical calculations recited in claim 1 are used by a routing algorithm. The claim does not improve the routing algorithm itself, improve GPS technology, or improve the functioning of the computer or database. Instead, it uses the calculated values as inputs to a routing algorithm operating according to its function. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 2. The routing algorithm is recited at a high level and performs its function of calculating routes using received input values. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 3: Claim 3 recites historical records further comprise dates, road segments, and damage reports. Claim 3 merely specifies additional categories of information collected for use by the mathematical analysis. Collecting additional data does not improve computer technology or another technology and merely expands the data available for the abstract calculations. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under 35 U.S.C. 101 step 2a prong 2. Receiving or storing additional information is routine data gathering and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation therefore does not provide significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 4: Claim 4 recites low-risk road segments appear shorter than high-risk road segments. Claim 4 merely describes the consequence of assigning modified length values. The claim does not improve the operation of the routing algorithm or GPS device but instead changes the data supplied to the routing algorithm. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). This limitation merely applies the results of the mathematical analysis and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Representing stored values differently for use by a routing algorithm constitutes manipulation of electronic data and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 5: Claim 5 recites high-risk road segments appear longer. Claim 5 is analogous to claim 4 and merely specifies another consequence of modifying stored data values. It does not improve computer functionality or another technology. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Assigning different numerical values to stored records is a computer function and therefore does not recite significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 6: Claim 6 recites CRS below threshold equals low risk; above threshold equals high risk. Claim 6 merely classifies calculated mathematical results into categories. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). This classification remains part of the abstract idea and does not provide a technological improvement. Categorizing mathematical results into labels constitutes insignificant post-solution activity and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 7: Claim 7 recites charge claim amounts to damage accounts and reward shipment values to damage-free accounts. Claim 7 further specifies how mathematical inputs are generated by allocating numerical values into damage and damage-free accounts. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). These additional calculations merely refine the mathematical analysis and do not improve computer functionality or another technology. Maintaining numerical accounts and performing arithmetic additions constitute computer processing and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 8: Claim 8 recites time-weighted claim amounts and shipment values. Applying time-weighting merely changes the mathematical calculations performed by the risk assessment algorithm. The limitation refines the abstract mathematical model without improving computer technology. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Applying mathematical weighting factors is itself part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot supply an inventive concept. The additional limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent Claim 10: Claim 10 recites prioritizing artificially shortened road segments merely specifies how the abstract results are used by a routing algorithm. No technological improvement is recited. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Routing algorithms using calculated inputs constitute computer implementation and therefore do not provide significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 11: Claim 11 recites adding dates, road segments, and damage reports merely expands the information collected for analysis and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This does not improve computer technology. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Additional data gathering constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 12: Claim 12 recites making low-risk roads appear shorter merely reflects modified stored data supplied to the routing algorithm. This does not improve computer technology. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Data manipulation does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 13: Claim 13 recites making high-risk roads appear longer likewise merely modifies stored data values without improving computer functionality. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Numerical modification does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 14: Claim 14 recites labeling road segments as low-risk or high-risk merely classifies mathematical results and therefore remains part of the abstract idea. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Categorization of calculated information is data processing and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 16: Claim 16 recites using artificially modified lengths as inputs to a routing algorithm merely applies the abstract calculations and does not improve computer functionality. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Using calculated values within a routing algorithm is computer activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 17: Claim 17 recites adding historical dates and damage reports merely specifies additional information collected for the mathematical analysis and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Data collection does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent Claim 18: Claim 18 recites representing low-risk roads as shorter merely reflects modified stored data and does not improve the operation of the routing algorithm. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Modification of stored numerical values does not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claim 19: Claim 19 recites representing high-risk roads as longer merely specifies another numerical consequence of the mathematical analysis and does not improve computer technology. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Manipulation of stored data values does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent Claim 20: Claim 20 recites treating road segments as low-risk or high-risk merely classifies mathematical outputs and remains part of the judicial exception. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Classifying calculated information is information processing and therefore does not provide significantly more. Accordingly, the additional limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Moreover, Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19: The additional element of a “remote GPS-enable device” in Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions under step 2B due being expressly recognized as Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC) in the art. For example; see US PG Pub (US 2003/0135304 A1) – “System and Method for Managing Transportation Assets”, hereinafter Sroub. See Sroub at ¶ [0037]: “This data can be transmitted to a remote processing system. Additionally, the unit on the vehicle may contain a display system that displays mapping information similar to that found in conventional GPS systems, which can accept information resulting from the analysis by the remote processing system.” For example; see US PG Pub (US 2018/0201263 A1) – “Route Risk Mitigation”, hereinafter Slusar. See Slusar at ¶ [0027]: “Similarly, a personal navigation device 110 (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS), geographic information system (GIS), satellite navigation system, mobile device, vehicle autonomous driving system, other location tracking device, etc.) may communicate with the computing device 102.” See Slusar at ¶ [0052]: “For example, an enhanced GPS unit may display a route (or segment of a route) in a red color to designate a high-risk route, and a route may be displayed in a green color to designate a lower risk route. At least one benefit of a predetermined category for the route risk value is that it may be used as the means for comparing the amount of risk associated with each travel route when providing alternate routes. In addition, the enhanced GPS unit may alert the driver of a high-risk road segment and offer the driver an incentive (e.g., monetary incentive, points, etc.) for avoiding that segment”. Also see Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0073] defines that the “GPS” is “standard” or “generic” -> “The routing options of method 100 are fed to a standard GPS unit for the application of the standard shortest distance and traffic information algorithms.” Also, at Applicant’s Original Specification at ¶ [0074]: “GPS device 510 can be a smart phone device, a tablet personal computer, or any suitable electronic device connected to network 515 and configured to run GPS navigation applications.”
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-20 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM 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 on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights