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 . The following FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 09/19/2025 regarding application 17/540,969. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending have been rejected.
Response to Amendments
2. Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/19/2025 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Due to proposed amendments, Examiner adds 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20. See Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) section shown below.
4. Due to proposed amendments, Examiner adds 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 1-20. See Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) section shown below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
5. 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 11-26, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration was improperly dismissed contains multiple procedural and substantive errors that warrant reconsideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. The declaration provides substantial expert testimony establishing the claimed invention representing significantly more than an abstract idea and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 12-13, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here regarding the 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration of substantial qualifications, Examiner notes that in 2025, the subject matter eligibility of software patents under 35 U.S.C. 101 remains a legal determination for the Examiner and the Courts, not a factual one. While a 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration from a highly qualified expert like Dr. Hauser is relevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 (novelty) or 103 (obviousness), its weight in a 101 analysis is strictly limited. Moreover, eligibility is a Legal Question, not a Technical Fact. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the question of whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and whether it provides an "inventive concept" (Step 2B) is a question of law. Legal Precedent: Federal Circuit precedent (e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc.) establishes that while there may be underlying factual disputes regarding whether a limitation is "well-understood, routine, and conventional," the ultimate conclusion of eligibility is for the Examiner/Court. Dr. Hauser’s expertise in "Operations Research" and "Quantitative Decision-Making" reinforces that the claimed RAA is rooted in Mathematical Concepts and Methods of Organizing Human Activity. His qualifications prove that the field is one of mathematical and business optimization, which are the very categories the USPTO and courts classify as abstract ideas. Secondly, Expert Testimony Cannot Override Legal Categories. Expert testimony cannot transform a legal abstract idea into a technological improvement. Even if Dr. Hauser testifies that the RAA is complex or non-conventional in the industry, the August 2025 USPTO Memo clarifies that complexity does not equal eligibility. If the "technical merits" described by Dr. Hauser consist of calculating odd ratios, ranking data, and applying weights, those are mathematical and mental processes regardless of how sophisticated an expert deems them. Thirdly, Lack of Technical Improvement to the Computer. Dr. Hauser’s specialization in "quantitative decision-making" identifies the "problem" as a business decision-making issue. For a 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration to be effective in a 101 rebuttal, it must testify to a technological improvement in computer functionality (e.g., reduced CPU cycles or improved data bus efficiency). If the expert testimony focuses on the "merits of GPS routing optimization" regarding transportation safety or business efficiency, it is merely confirming that the invention is a Method of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner is entitled to dismiss testimony that characterizes a business improvement as a technological improvement.
Thus, in conclusion, the Examiner's dismissal of the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration is proper because the testimony fails to address the technical functioning of the computer. Instead, it focuses on the sophistication of the abstract logic. Under 2025 standards, if the "optimization" is achieved through mathematical rules applied to historical data, it remains an abstract idea ineligible for patent protection.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration by the Examiner was incorrectly asserted that the declaration pertains “only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims and Examiner’s suggestion that objective evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claims does not require a claim-by-claim analysis when the declaration addresses the core inventive concept (see Applicant Remarks, Bottom of Page 12 and top of Page 13, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In 2025, the USPTO December 2025 memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) emphasize that while Rule 1.132 declarations are a critical strategic tool for overcoming § 101 rejections, they must satisfy a strict nexus requirement to the claimed invention. The following is a 35 U.S.C. 101 rebuttal to the argument that a declaration addressing a "core concept" rather than individual claims is sufficient. For example, firstly evidence must be commensurate with claim scope. The argument that a declaration addressing a "core concept" is sufficient fails because MPEP § 2106.07(b) and the December 2025 Guidance mandate that objective evidence of eligibility must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claims. If a declaration discusses a broad "system" or "core concept" but the claims are limited to specific steps (e.g., calculating odd ratios or weighting metrics), the evidence does not provide a clear nexus to the actual limitations being analyzed for eligibility. According to MPEP § 716.01(B), the Examiner has explained why the evidence is insufficient, and a lack of commensurability with claim scope is a valid, recognized ground for finding a declaration non-probative. Secondly, Nexus is Required for Eligibility, Not Just Non-Obviousness. In 2025, the USPTO explicitly instructs Examiners to apply the nexus requirement to SMEDs. Evidence used to show a "practical application" (Step 2A, Prong 2) or "significantly more" (Step 2B) must specifically tie to the technical benefits provided by the claim features, not just the general idea of the invention. While the ultimate eligibility is a legal conclusion, the December 2025 Memo clarifies that a declaration's value lies solely in its factual support for underlying predicates (e.g., whether a step can be performed in the mind). Legal conclusions about a "core concept" carry no weight. Thirdly, the ultimate eligibility is a legal conclusion, the December 2025 Memo clarifies that a declaration's value lies solely in its factual support for underlying predicates (e.g., whether a step can be performed in the mind). Legal conclusions about a "core concept" carry no weight. Under the December 2025 standard, Examiners evaluate SMEDs under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. A declaration that fails to analyze individual claims cannot help an applicant meet their burden of showing that eligibility is "more likely than not". General assertions about a "core concept" are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case where specific claim limitations (like mathematical ratios) have been identified as judicial exceptions.
Thus, in conclusion, the Examiner is correct to require that the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration be commensurate in scope with the individual claims. Without a specific tie between the claim language and the technical benefits described by the expert, the declaration lacks the probative value necessary to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Argument #3:
(C). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration clearly explains that the invention “implements a risk assessment algorithm (RAA) that analyzes historical data from previously traveled routes, tracks KPIs, derives road risk and road probability metrics, and applies appropriate weights to each metric to artificially and dynamically modify the length, and therefore the appeal, of the traveled routes when considered by GPS-routing devices and further states that the invention “incorporates risk analysis into routing generation by GPS-routing devices without requiring such devices to perform or even be aware of the risk calculations performed, which is in itself an extension to the basic functionality of the GPS-routing devices (see Applicant Remarks, 1st ¶ and 2nd ¶ of Page 13 , dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In 2025, the USPTO updated its 35 U.S.C. § 101 framework regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132. While expert declarations can supply objective facts, the December 2025 USPTO SMED Memorandum clarifies that "bare legal conclusions" in a declaration carry no weight. Examiner notes that Enriched Data" Does Not Equal Technological Improvement. In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that applying generic machine learning or algorithms to new data environments is ineligible under § 101 if it does not disclose a technical improvement to the underlying technology. Providing a GPS device with "artificial" or "weighted" length parameters based on a risk assessment is an improvement to the content of the data, not a technical improvement to the routing algorithm or device hardware itself. The device's "unawareness" confirms it is performing its conventional routing function on a different data set, which is a hallmark of ineligible subject matter. Functional Results vs. Technical Implementation. The August 2025 USPTO Memo reminds examiners that a practical application must go beyond merely applying an abstract idea to generic computer resources. Dr. Hauser’s assertion that the invention "incorporates risk analysis into routing generation" describes a functional outcome rather than a specific technical implementation. According to the USPTO 2025 Guidance, if a human could theoretically manually adjust map weights based on risk factors and feed them to a navigator, the process remains a Mental Process or a Method of Organizing Human Activity. Rebuttal of the "Extension of Functionality" Claim. A persuasive SMED must show a factual nexus between the claimed features and a technical benefit like enhanced computational efficiency or new architectural arrangements. Claiming that a system "extends functionality" by outsourcing calculations to a remote server is a logical arrangement, not a technological one. Without proving that the RAA improves the GPS's own processing efficiency or signal handling, the declaration fails to establish the "something more" required to transform the abstract risk assessment into a patent-eligible invention.
Thus, in conclusion, the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration fails to show that the RAA modifies the internal technical operation of the routing algorithm. Under Recentive (2025), merely "biasing" a conventional system with abstractly derived scores does not constitute a technological improvement.
Argument #4:
(D). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration was summarily dismissed by the Examiner where the Examiner stating it “untimely fails to set forth facts that are not germane to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection at issue. This dismissal ignores the technical improvements detailed in the declaration that specifically the invention provides a concrete enhancement to GPS routing technology; the RAA performs sophisticated analysis using specialized data sets such as roadway risk metrics and that the claimed system dynamically modifies route length and appeal based on these metrics" (see Applicant Remarks, last ¶ of Page 13 and 1st ¶ of Page 14, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to these 35 U.S.C. 101 remarks regarding the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration, Examiner discloses that Sophisticated Analysis Does Not Equal Technical Improvement. Under the August 2025 USPTO Guidance, the "sophistication" or complexity of an algorithm does not move it out of the Abstract Idea category. Analyzing specialized data sets (claims, shipment values, KPIs) to "rank" or "calculate ratios" is categorized as Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes. The Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025) held that applying complex analytics to solve field-specific problems (like transportation risk) is not a technological improvement if the computer's own functionality remains unchanged. Secondly, Dynamic Modification is a Functional Outcome, Not a Technical Solution. Artificially modifying route length parameters is a logic-based strategy to influence a generic routing algorithm, not a technical improvement to the algorithm itself. The claim explicitly states this occurs "without modifying the routing algorithm." In 2025, the USPTO and courts treat such "biasing" via data substitution as a Method of Organizing Human Activity (risk management). Because the GPS device functions "as it normally would" but with different data, the "enhancement" is to the business outcome (safety), not the computer technology. Point #3: Declaration Must Provide Facts, Not Legal Conclusions. According to the August 2025 USPTO SMED Memo, a declaration is only "germane" to § 101 if it sets forth objective facts proving that a limitation is not "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in the computer field, or that it improves computer operations (e.g., reduced CPU usage). If Dr. Hauser’s declaration merely describes how the RAA makes routing "smarter" or "better" for the transportation industry, those are business/economic facts, not computer-science facts. The Examiner is correct to dismiss testimony that conflates "industry utility" with "technological improvement."
Thus, in conclusion, Examiner summarizes the following Applicant assertions that "Sophisticated Analysis" refers to Complexity in data manipulation is an Abstract Idea, not an inventive concept. "Specialized Data Sets" limits an abstract idea to specific data is a field-of-use limitation. "Dynamic Modification" is a functional "trick" (artificial data) is not an improvement to computer functionality. Also "Concrete Enhancement" refers to an enhancement to logistics/safety (business), not to GPS/navigation technology.
The Examiner's dismissal of the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration is proper under 2025 standards because the "technical improvements" cited are functional results of abstract logic. Without factual evidence that the invention improves the underlying architecture of the GPS or the efficiency of the server, the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration fails to establish an inventive concept.
Argument #5:
(E). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration provides a detailed and technically sophisticated analysis tracing the evolution of GPS routing methodologies from deterministic optimization, to probabilistic traffic modeling and ultimately to the claimed stochastic risk assessment approach. He explains that the GPS/ route optimization problem introduced in the disclosure takes the GPS/route optimization one step further but must deal with additional noise, uncertainty, and stochasticity," and that the disclosure "considers more specialized and more complex data sets, such as roadway risk metrics”. The Examiner fails to engage with this technical progression or to explain why such a nuanced algorithmic framework should be dismissed as merely an abstract idea (see Applicant Remarks, Page 14 (under the Substantive Technical Arguments Ignored Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rebuttal to the argument that a "technical progression" from deterministic to stochastic risk modeling constitutes a technological improvement rather than an abstract idea. Complexity and "Nuance" Do Not Negate Abstraction. Under the 2025 Alice/Mayo framework, the complexity or "sophistication" of an algorithm is irrelevant to Step 2A, Prong 1. In Recentive v. Fox (2025), the court held that transitioning from simpler models to complex machine learning models is an evolution in mathematics, not a technological improvement to the computer itself. Handling "noise, uncertainty, and stochasticity" using odd ratios and probability metrics remains the recitation of Mathematical Concepts. "Stochastic Risk Assessment" as a Method of Organizing Human Activity. While "route optimization" is a field of study, the specific "stochastic risk assessment" described—ranking road segments based on damage claims and shipment values—is a fundamental economic practice (risk management). In 2025, the USPTO classifies these practices as Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The fact that a computer performs this assessment more accurately than a human does not change the "abstract" nature of the activity. Specialized Data Sets are "Field-of-Use" Limitations. As established in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the "collection and analysis of information" remains abstract even if the information is highly specialized or complex. In 2025, the USPTO 2024 AI Guidance Update clarifies that "limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment" (like roadway risk in GPS routing) does not integrate the idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. "Technical Progression" -> Represents an advancement in mathematical modeling, not computer science or hardware functionality. "Handling Stochasticity" -> Categorized as Mathematical Concepts (probability and statistics). "Specialized Data" -> Information-based limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that does not confer eligibility. "Nuanced Framework" -> Complexity does not mask the underlying Mental Process of data analysis and evaluation.
The "technical progression" described by Dr. Hauser is an advancement in Operations Research and Mathematics, not an improvement to the underlying computer-based routing technology. Under 2025 standards, if the computer performs its conventional functions (calculating routes) while merely using different mathematical inputs, the claim remains directed to an ineligible abstract idea.
Argument #6:
(F). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration "implements a risk assessment algorithm ('RAA') that analyzes historical data from previously traveled routes, tracks key performance indicators ('KPis'), derives road risk and road probability metrics, and applies appropriate weights to each metric to artificially and dynamically modify the length ... of the traveled routes when considered by OPS-routing devices”. This constitutes a specific and concrete technical solution that clearly transcends generic computer implementation. The Examiner's characterization of the invention as merely "using generic computing elements" overlooks the sophisticated methodology and the inventive architecture described in the declaration (see Applicant Remarks, 2nd ¶ of Page 14 (under the Substantive Technical Arguments Ignored Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rebuttal to the 1.132 Declaration argument that the RAA methodology and "artificial length modification" transcend generic computer implementation. Mathematical Sophistication is not Technological Innovation. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, "calculating odd ratios," "deriving probability metrics," and "applying weights" are categorized as Mathematical Concepts. The Federal Circuit in Recentive (2025) held that the mere use of sophisticated machine learning or complex stochastic modeling to optimize an outcome does not move a claim out of the "abstract" category. Complexity in mathematical modeling is not equivalent to a technical improvement in computer functionality. "Artificial Modification" is an Abstract Logical Proxy. Artificially altering a "length" value in a database is a logical proxy or "data trick" used to influence a generic routing algorithm without changing its underlying technology. The claim explicitly admits this occurs "without modifying the routing algorithm." In 2025, the USPTO classifies such logical rules—which bias a generic system by feeding it non-physical data—as a Method of Organizing Human Activity (risk management logic). It is a functional result, not a technical solution. "Inventive Architecture" vs. Conventional Components: The "architecture" recited consists of a "remote server," "remote clients," a "network," and "GPS-enabled devices." Under current USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements. Arranging these generic components to perform a new business-logic sequence (RAA) does not create an "inventive architecture" for § 101 purposes unless it solves a computer-centric problem (e.g., data throughput speed or memory efficiency), which is absent here. "Sophisticated Methodology" -> Categorized as Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes. "Artificially Modify Length" -> A logical strategy for a business goal (safety), not a technical upgrade to software. "Inventive Architecture" -> Functional arrangement of generic hardware performing conventional tasks. "Transcends Generic Implementation" -> Fails because the improvement is to transportation logistics, not computer science or navigation physics.
In conclusion, the Examiner's characterization is correct. The invention provides a business solution (reducing cargo risk) implemented through abstract data manipulation. Under 2025 standards, the declaration fails to establish an inventive concept because it identifies "merits" that are entirely mathematical or economic in nature.
Argument #7:
(G). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration identifies a specific technical problem: "existing GPS devices cannot provide travel/damage analysis without significant hardware and/or software upgrades". The claimed invention addresses this challenge through an elegant, yet practical, solution-performing risk calculations remotely in the cloud and transmitting "length adjusted road segment information" that GPS devices can process "as-is to override existing road-length information". This architecture enables a meaningful technical improvement by extending the functionality of OPS devices without requiring hardware modifications, thereby solving a real-world problem through a novel and non-trivial application of technology. Despite the extensive and detailed technical evidence provided in the declaration, the Examiner fails to substantively engage with or rebut this analysis, offering no explanation as to why these specific improvements do not constitute a practical application under § 101" (see Applicant Remarks, 3rd ¶ of Page 14 and 1st ¶ of Page 15 (under the Substantive Technical Arguments Ignored Section), dated 09/19/2025). 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.
Argument #8:
(H). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration identifies a specific technical problem: "existing GPS devices cannot provide travel/damage analysis without significant hardware and/or software upgrades". The claimed invention addresses this challenge through an elegant, yet practical, solution-performing risk calculations remotely in the cloud and transmitting "length adjusted road segment information" that GPS devices can process "as-is to override existing road-length information". This architecture enables a meaningful technical improvement by extending the functionality of OPS devices without requiring hardware modifications, thereby solving a real-world problem through a novel and non-trivial application of technology. Despite the extensive and detailed technical evidence provided in the declaration, the Examiner fails to substantively engage with or rebut this analysis, offering no explanation as to why these specific improvements do not constitute a practical application under § 101" (see Applicant Remarks, 1st ¶ of Page 15 (under the Dismissal of Technical Improvements Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument that Dr. Hauser’s analysis of technical challenges for a POSITA justifies eligibility can be rebutted using current 2025 standards and precedential case law. Functional Results vs. Technical Implementation. Dr. Hauser argues that POSITAs recognize GPS devices lack the local hardware capability to process dynamic data without upgrades, thereby justifying the "remote cloud architecture." In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the court held that patents that do no more than apply generic machine learning or algorithms to a new data environment—without disclosing a technical innovation in the underlying process itself—are ineligible. Moving complex calculations to a remote server because a local device is "too slow" is a functional workaround for a business preference, not a technical improvement to the computer's operation. It does not change how the computer processes data; it simply uses a more powerful computer to do the work. "Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity" (Step 2A, Prong 2). The declaration asserts that the claimed architecture solves the problem of "software source code being unavailable" for third-party GPS updates. The August 2025 USPTO Memo reaffirms that using conventional computer components (like a cloud server and network) for their intended purpose is "insignificant extra-solution activity". Bypassing a lack of software access by sending "pre-processed" data (artificial lengths) back to a generic GPS device is a logistical strategy, not a technical solution that improves navigation technology. If the GPS processes the data "as-is" using its existing, unmodified routing algorithm, the device's technical functioning remains unchanged. Nexus and Probative Value Requirements (December 2025 SMED Guidance). Under the December 2025 SMED Memo, any declaration must have a clear nexus between the claimed features and specific technical benefits. Identifying a business-driven challenge (e.g., "third-party devices are locked") does not support eligibility if the solution is simply to perform an abstract idea (risk analysis) elsewhere. Dr. Hauser’s testimony focuses on industry hurdles for implementation rather than technological improvements to how data structures or computer architectures operate. "POSITA knows local hardware is too slow -> Solved by generic cloud offloading, which is routine/conventional. "Software updates may not be possible" -> A logistical/business constraint, not a technical computer-science problem. "Extends GPS functionality" -> Only extends the utility for a user; the technical operation of the GPS remains conventional.
Therefore, in conclusion, the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration describes a practical implementation of a business strategy, not a technological advancement. Per Recentive (2025), because the claims delineate "what" is achieved (risk-based routing) without explaining "how" the computer's internal technology is improved, the Expert's testimony fails to overcome the § 101 rejection.
Argument #9:
(I). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration identifies specific technical benefits of the invention. For example, it explains that "organizations implementing the claimed invention can benefit without the need to upgrade their existing software and hardware infrastructure present in vehicle fleets, which would otherwise present substantial and costly technical and technological challenges”. This represents a concrete and practical improvement to existing OPS routing technology-one that the Examiner dismisses without any substantive technical rebuttal (see Applicant Remarks, 2nd ¶ of Page 15 (under the Dismissal of Technical Improvements Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rebuttal to the 1.132 Declaration argument that avoiding hardware/software upgrades constitutes a technical improvement. Cost Savings and Business Convenience are not Technical Improvements. Dr. Hauser argues that the ability to benefit without "costly technical and technological challenges" or infrastructure upgrades is a technical benefit. Under current 2025 standards, economic advantages, such as cost savings or avoiding the need for new hardware, are categorized as business or commercial benefits, not technological ones. In Recentive v. Fox (2025), the Federal Circuit held that an invention must improve the internal functioning of the computer or technology itself. Using a remote server to bypass local hardware limitations is a logistical workaround that leaves the "existing software and hardware infrastructure" technologically unchanged and unimproved. Routine Offloading to the Cloud (Step 2A, Prong 2). The declaration asserts that remote processing provides a "concrete and practical improvement”. The August 2025 USPTO Guidance clarifies that "offloading" data to a remote server for processing is insignificant extra-solution activity involving conventional computer components. Simply moving the location where a calculation (an abstract idea) occurs does not transform that calculation into a patent-eligible practical application. If the local GPS device functions as it always has, but merely receives different data, there is no technological innovation in the device's routing mechanics. Lack of Technical Nexus (December 2025 SMED Guidance). The argument claims the Examiner fails to provide a "substantive technical rebuttal" to the expert's analysis. Under the December 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED) Memorandum, a declaration only carries weight if it identifies a factual nexus between claim limitations and a technical benefit (e.g., reduced latency or increased computational efficiency). Dr. Hauser’s testimony focuses on the difficulty of implementation and financial hurdles for organizations. These are extrinsic industry factors, not intrinsic technical improvements to the software or hardware architecture recited in the claims. Avoiding hardware upgrades -> A business/economic convenience, not a technological improvement to the computer. Cost-effective implementation -> Commercial utility does not equal patent eligibility under § 101. Solving "technical challenges" -> Bypassing a challenge via remote processing is a routine application of generic cloud technology. Concrete/Practical improvement -> The improvement is in the logistics of deployment, not the technology of navigation.
The 37 CFR 1.132 declaration describes a practical business strategy for deploying risk-assessment software, not a technological advancement in computer science. Per Recentive (2025), because the claims fail to show how the underlying technology itself is improved, the Expert's testimony regarding implementation ease is insufficient to overcome the Step 2B "significantly more" requirement.
Argument #10:
(J). Applicant argues that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration explains that the invention "incorporates risk analysis into routing generation by OPS-routing devices without requiring such devices to perform or even be aware of the risk calculations performed, which is in itself an extension to the basic functionality of the OPS-routing devices”. This architecture demonstrates a meaningful integration of the judicial exception into a practical application that improves existing technology. Despite the detailed and technically grounded evidence presented, the Examiner avoids addressing the substance of these arguments and fails to provide any meaningful analysis or rationale for rejecting the expert testimony (see Applicant Remarks, 3rd ¶ of Page 15 (under the Dismissal of Technical Improvements Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. 101 rebuttal to the 1.132 Declaration argument that "remote risk integration" and "device unawareness" constitute a practical application that improves technology. Outsourcing Logic is Not a Technical Improvement. Dr. Hauser argues that the architecture "extends basic functionality" because the GPS device is "unaware" of the risk calculations performed by the remote server. Under the August 2025 USPTO Guidance, moving the location where a calculation (an abstract idea) occurs—often called "cloud offloading"—is a logistical arrangement, not a technological improvement to the device itself. In Recentive v. Fox (2025), the Federal Circuit held that an invention must improve the internal technical functioning of the computer. By admitting the GPS is "unaware" and its own algorithms remain unmodified, the declaration confirms that the GPS is functioning as a generic tool in its conventional manner. "Enriched Input" is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The argument asserts that incorporating risk analysis into routing is a "meaningful integration" into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). Providing a conventional algorithm with "enriched" or "weighted" data (the risk metrics) is categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity. The USPTO 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED) Memorandum clarifies that an improvement in the quality of data provided to a user or a device is a functional/business benefit, not a technological one. Because the GPS device processes the data "as-is," there is no technical innovation in the routing mechanics or the device's architecture. Expert Opinion Cannot Override Legal Categories. Expert testimony in a 1.132 Declaration can provide objective facts, but the ultimate conclusion of eligibility is a question of law. According to the December 2025 SMED Guidance, an expert's characterization of a process as "technical" or an "extension" carries no weight if the underlying steps fall into the enumerated abstract categories (Mathematical Concepts and Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Dr. Hauser’s analysis describes the utility of the invention for transport logistics, but eligibility requires a technical improvement in computer science. "Extension to basic functionality" -> Represents a functional outcome (better routes), not a technical upgrade to the GPS. "Unaware of risk calculations" -> Confirms the GPS is used conventionally to execute an abstract idea. "Meaningful integration" -> Fails because the "integration" is merely feeding data to a generic computer tool. "Technically grounded evidence" -> Addresses industry benefits (safety) rather than computer-science advancements.
The 37 CFR 1.132 declaration fails to show that the RAA modifies the internal technical operation of the routing algorithm. Under Recentive (2025), merely "biasing" a conventional system with abstractly derived scores for a business goal (safe transport) does not constitute a technological improvement.
Argument #11:
(K). Applicant argues that Examiner asserts that the invention represents “an entrepreneurial improving solution” rather than “a technological improving solution” and then states that Dr. Hauser’s 37 CFR 1.132 Declaration clearly establishes that the claimed invention delivers concrete technical improvements to OPS routing technology-not merely commercial benefits. The sophisticated risk assessment methodology and the seamless integration architecture described in the declaration represent genuine technological advancements. These improvements are grounded in technical problem-solving and system design, yet the Examiner fails to substantively address the expert evidence or explain why these specific enhancements do not qualify as technological improvements under § 101 (see Applicant Remarks, 1st ¶ of Page 16 (under the Commercial vs. Technological Success Mischaracterization Section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rebuttal to the 1.132 Declaration argument that the RAA delivers "concrete technical improvements" rather than "entrepreneurial" solutions. Sophisticated Analytics are Entrepreneurial, Not Technological. Under the August 2025 USPTO Guidance, the complexity or "sophistication" of a mathematical model does not move it out of the Abstract Idea category. In Recentive v. Fox (2025), the Federal Circuit held that using complex machine learning or probability models to optimize a commercial outcome (like reducing transport risk) is an entrepreneurial improvement in business logic, not a technological improvement to the computer itself. The "sophistication" described by Dr. Hauser is an advancement in Operations Research and Mathematics, both of which are judicial exceptions. "Seamless Integration" is Routine Computer Use. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, integrating an algorithm with a "remote server," "remote clients," and "GPS devices" is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Because the declaration admits the system works with "existing software and hardware infrastructure" without modification, it confirms the technology is used in a conventional, routine manner. In 2025, a technological improvement must show an innovation in the computer’s internal operation, such as reduced CPU cycles or enhanced data bus efficiency, which are absent here. Solving an Economic Problem via Software. The declaration states the improvements are "grounded in technical problem-solving”. However, a technological improvement under § 101 must solve a technical problem (e.g., signal latency or memory management). The "problem" addressed here— cargo damage and insurance claims—is an economic and logistical problem. The Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group ruled that an advance in a "limited field" (like transport safety) that relies on the "collection and analysis of information" is an abstract idea. The "solution" is a business strategy, even if it is implemented using a "sophisticated" algorithmic sequence.
The Examiner is correct to characterize the invention as an "entrepreneurial improving solution." Per Recentive (2025), because the claims delineate "what" is achieved (risk-based routing) without explaining how the underlying technology is technically improved, the Expert's testimony fails to meet the Step 2B "significantly more" requirement.
Argument #12:
(L). 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 16-20, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s application of the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” categories under the abstract idea prong 1 of the Alice framework appears to be overly formulaic and does not adequately consider the claim as a whole (see Applicant Remarks, bottom of Page 16, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
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 #13:
(M). Applicant argues that the MPEP explicitly states that “claims do not recite mental processes when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations” (see Applicant Remarks, last paragraph of Page 17, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
Argument #14:
(N). Applicant argues that this principle of “claims do not recite mental processes when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations” and cites the court cases of “CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc” (Fed. Cir. 2011) whereby the Federal Circuit emphasized that when a computer is required to performed the claimed method it cannot be dismissed as a mental process, (2) “Research Corp. Techs. V. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859” (Fed. Cir. 2010) and (3) “SIRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commission 601 F.3d 1319” (Fed. Cir. 2010) to support the proposition that technical operations requiring computer implementation fall outside the scope of abstract idea mental processes MPEP explicitly states that “claims do not recite mental processes when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations” (see Applicant Remarks, last paragraph of Pages 17-18, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The subject matter eligibility of software patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is assessed using the Alice/Mayo framework. These steps recited for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 are considered patent-ineligible because they differ fundamentally from the technology held eligible in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2010) due to the following reasons.
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).
Additionally, the steps recited for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 in view of the claim limitations of the instant application are non-analogous to the court case of “Research Corp. Techs. V. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859” (Fed. Cir. 2010) under the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis via the Alice/Mayo framework due to the following reasons.
In response to Applicant’s assertions here, Examiner points out first a Fundamental Difference: Technical Process vs. Business Method Logic. In Research Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims related to a method for digitally producing halftone images eligible because they improved a technical process. The court emphasized that the invention was a "specific application of a mathematical algorithm... that produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result," and not merely an abstract algorithm in isolation. Research Corp.: The claims were tied to the physical output and manipulation of image data using complex mathematical steps specific to image processing.
The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 recited in the instant application relate to risk assessment and route planning, which is a fundamental economic practice (risk management for goods transport). The core of your method is a business decision to use "artificial lengths" to influence a routing outcome. This is a business logic or "trick," not an improvement to the underlying technology of navigation or data processing 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 "Useful, Concrete, and Tangible Result". While Research Corp. used the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" test (pre-dating Alice), the principle still holds that the result must be something more than the performance of an abstract process on a generic computer. The output of the method process of the instant application of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 is "routing options" based on a subjective business metric (risk). The result in Research Corp. was a specific improved digital halftone image. Here, the instant application of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 describes a functional outcome rather than a structural or technological transformation. Reason #4: Method vs. System Implication. Research Corp. focused on claims that essentially defined a machine configuration to perform the image processing steps. Your claims describe a "method" of using data. The 2025 USPTO guidance scrutinizes method claims more closely, especially when they primarily recite abstract steps (e.g., calculations, organizing data) performed on generic computing components (a remote server, a GPS device).
Research Corp. Techs. involved a specific, technical method for manipulating image data to produce a tangible output. The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application, by contrast, describe abstract business and mathematical methods for managing risk and influencing navigation behavior using data manipulation. The steps provided are abstract ideas that do not rise to the level of a patent-eligible technical improvement under the 2025 Alice framework. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and non-analogous to the court case of “Research Corp. Techs. V. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859” (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Thirdly, regarding the court case of CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., the recited steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 are ineligible and analogous to the CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2011) court case under 35 U.S.C. 101 when performing the Alice v. Mayo test.
Examiner points out that the steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application are considered patent-ineligible because they are analogous to the "unpatentable mental processes" identified in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011). In CyberSource, the court held that a method for detecting fraud by verifying IP addresses was ineligible because it consisted of steps that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The step of Combining Weighted Metrics into a Composite Risk Score (CRS): Abstract Idea Category: Mathematical Concepts. Similar to the "weighing values" in CyberSource, this step describes a mathematical calculation—combining weighted numerical values to produce a score. Under current guidance, calculating a relationship between variables is a classic mathematical concept. Adjusting Road Segment Lengths by "Artificially Altering" Values. Evaluation: Comparing a score to a "threshold" is a mental judgment. CyberSource established that methods equivalent to human mental work are unpatentable. Data Manipulation: The act of assigning "artificially reduced" or "increased" values based on a logical rule (if-then) is a mental process that can be performed via simple logic. This mirrors the "mere collection and organization of data" that the CyberSource court deemed insufficient for eligibility. Biasing a Routing Algorithm without Modifying It. The intent—biasing a result via data manipulation—is a strategic business logic or "method of organizing human activity" (risk management). CyberSource noted that adding references to internet commerce or generic computers does not make an otherwise abstract mental process patentable. Transmitting and Receiving Adjusted Length Information. Reciting the transmission of data over a network is viewed as "insignificant extra-solution activity." In CyberSource, the court ruled that the internet is merely a data source and does not impose "meaningful limits" on a claim's scope. Using Data as Input Parameters and Providing Routing Options. Providing information ("routing options") to a user is a form of communication/presentation of data, which is an abstract concept. CyberSource emphasized that systems depending on "human intelligence alone" for their operation are beyond the reach of patentable subject matter.
Unlike inventions that improve how a machine learning model operates (which are now favored under the October 2025 ARP decision), these steps recited Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application focus on what the data represents (artificial lengths) rather than a technical improvement to the routing algorithm or GPS hardware itself. Because the "biasing" is achieved through data substitution rather than a technical modification to the routing logic, the steps remain analogous to the ineligible mental work described in CyberSource.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and remain analogous to the court case of “CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.” (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Argument #15:
(O). Applicant argues that Examiner’s analysis overlooks the USPTO’s own guidance in Examples 40 and 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Example 40 illustrates that complex data processing integrated into a practical application that improves existing technology transcends abstract mental processes and Example 42 demonstrates that claims involving specific technical implementations such as network-based storage, real-time data conversion and automated messaging constitute a practical application even when they involve organizing human activities. Thereby Examiner’s characterization of the claims as abstract fails to account for the technical nature and practical application of the claimed invention (see Applicant Remarks, Page 18, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Example 40 of the USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 Examples, Examiner notes that Example 40 concerns a method for "managing a community of virtual workspaces" which was found eligible because it provided a technical solution to a specific computer problem: "efficient and automated creation, management, and control of virtual workspaces" that reduced server memory usage. The steps provided here do not solve a technical computer problem. They address a business/logistics problem (transportation risk). Unlike Example 40, which improved server memory management, these claims describe using a generic server to execute a risk analysis (an abstract idea). The claims do not recite a change to how the server processes data, handles memory, or coordinates network traffic in a technical way. Therefore, the invention is not analogous to Example 40's technical improvement.
Regarding Example 42 of the USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 Examples, Examiner notes that Example 42 describes an "electronic transaction verification method" that was found eligible because it recited specific technical improvements to the function of a computer, such as "converting data from an external, non-database format into a database format." The steps provided here do not include specific technical implementations like data format conversion or improved data storage methodologies. These claim limitation steps for example in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application recite "Uploading to a remote server": Generic data transmission. "Running a risk assessment algorithm": Using a computer to perform calculations (a mathematical concept). "Tracking KPIs" and "Calculating odd ratios": Abstract mental and mathematical processes. "Applying weights" via ML: Applying a generic ML model without improving the ML process itself. "Receiving input": Routine data I/O. Moreover, Examiner’s rebuttal to "Functional" vs. "Technical" Significance. The argument asserts that the "functional relationships" in the claims are technically significant. As established in Federal Circuit cases like Electric Power Group v. Alstom, describing functional relationships or the "real-time data flow" does not make an abstract idea eligible. The claims functionally describe a business strategy (risk assessment for transport) executed on a computer. Because all the computer components and data-handling steps are conventional and perform their ordinary functions, the claims lack an "inventive concept" under Step 2B. They remain directed to the abstract ideas of risk management and data analysis.
In conclusion, the Examiner is correct in characterizing the claims as abstract. The "technical nature" described is merely the implementation of abstract ideas on a computer, which fails to provide an inventive concept under the Alice/Mayo framework.
Argument #16:
(P). Applicant argues that Examiner appears to misinterpret the structure of the claims by categorizing all limitations as either part of the “abstract idea” or as “generic” additional elements and asserts that the binary framework fails to account for the integrated nature of the claimed invention where technical elements are not merely appended but are woven throughout the method in a manner that reflects a specific and practical technological implementation (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 18-20 (under Incorrect Identification of Additional Elements Section), dated 09/19/2025)). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here, Examiner notes that Interweaving Abstract Steps Does Not Create a Technical Solution. The argument asserts that the "integrated nature" of the claim reflects a practical application. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, simply "weaving" abstract mathematical steps (ranking, odd ratios, probability metrics) with generic computer functions (uploading, remote server, ML model) does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application. In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025), the Federal Circuit clarified that if the "integration" consists of nothing more than using conventional computer components to execute an algorithm, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea. The "interweaving" described is merely the standard logical flow of a data analysis routine. Point #2: Generic Components Functioning Conventionally. The argument claims the technical elements are not "merely appended." For a technical element to be more than "generic," it must be used in a way that improves the computer's functionality. The claim recites a "remote server," "remote clients," and a "trained ML model." According to the August 2025 USPTO Guidance, unless the claim explains a technical improvement to how the ML model is trained or how the server processes data (e.g., faster throughput or reduced memory usage), these elements are considered generic. They are performing their intended functions (storing and processing data) to execute the abstract logic of risk assessment. Point #3: Solving a Business Problem, not a Technical One. The argument claims the claim represents a "practical technological implementation." A practical technological implementation must solve a technical problem (e.g., signal acquisition in GPS). These steps solve a business/logistics problem (cargo damage risk). The Federal Circuit held in Electric Power Group that adding a computer to a method of collecting and analyzing information—even if that information is “woven” into a specific field like transportation—does not constitute a technological improvement. The “practical implementation” here is a business strategy, not a computer-science advancement.
The Examiner’s categorization remains correct. The claim does not improve the “functioning of the computer”; it merely provides a computer-implemented certain method of organizing human activity or mental processes. Under 2025 standards, the claim lacks an inventive concept because it relies on the “mere instructions to apply” a business-centric algorithm using conventional hardware.
Then Applicant argues that the Examiner’s superficial treatment overlooks the functional relationships and coordinate operations among these components including: the network-based distributed processing architecture enabling real-time data flow, the algorithmic coordination between the risk assessment algorithm and routing systems, the dynamic adjustment of GPS routing parameters based on computed risk scores and the conditional collection and processing triggered by threshold-based risk evaluations whereby these features are not generic they reflect specific technical solutions to routing optimization and transportation safety challenges (see Applicant Remarks, Page 19, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here, Examiner discloses that Functional Relationships are Not Technical Improvements. The argument asserts that "algorithmic coordination" between risk assessment and routing systems reflects a technical solution. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, a claim must improve the functioning of the computer itself, not merely its output. In the precedential 2025 decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., the Federal Circuit held that using ML to dynamically optimize schedules or maps is not a technological improvement if the underlying ML model and computer hardware remain generic. The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application describe a "functional" relationship where data from one algorithm (RAA) informs another (GPS routing) without improving the technical architecture of either. Reason #2: "Dynamic Adjustment" is Inherent to Machine Learning. The argument characterizes "dynamic adjustment of GPS routing parameters" as a specific technological advancement. The Federal Circuit has ruled that iterative training and dynamic adjustments are "incident to the very nature of machine learning". These features are standard aspects of how ML operates and do not constitute an "inventive concept" unless the claim recites a specific, non-generic method for how the ML model itself is improved. Reason #3: "Network-Based Architecture" is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The argument emphasizes a "distributed processing architecture" enabling "real-time data flow." Reciting a "remote server," "remote clients," and a "network" involves only well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. The August 2025 USPTO Memo reminds examiners that using a computer as a "tool" to perform an abstract idea more quickly or at a larger scale (e.g., real-time processing) does not confer eligibility. Reason #4: Threshold-Based Logic is a Mental Process. The argument claims "conditional collection... triggered by threshold-based risk evaluations" is non-generic. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, "evaluations" and "judgments" (such as ranking segments or determining if a score exceeds a threshold) are categorized as Mental Processes. These are tasks that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and limiting them to a specific "field of use" like transportation does not make them patent-eligible.
The steps of the claim limitations of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application remain directed to an abstract idea (risk assessment and data management) because they lack a specific technical innovation in the machine learning process or the computer's functioning.
Applicant then argues that Examiner’s Step 2B analysis is similarly deficient whereby the WURC analysis fails to meaningfully address the claimed technical features whereby the analysis fails to consider the technical substance of the claims and the specification. The claimed invention provides a specific, non-conventional solution to a technological problem in GPS routing, and the additional elements should be recognized as contributing to a practical application that goes beyond any abstract idea (see Applicant Remarks, Bottom of Page 19 and Top of Page 20, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
Argument #17:
(Q). Applicant argues that Examiner’s analysis is fundamentally flawed due to its artificial fragmentation of the claimed invention into isolated components, rather than evaluating the claims as an integrated whole and then states that Examiner fails to consider all of the claimed limitations taken together and does not appreciate how the ordered combination of elements collectively achieves a practical application that enhanced GPS routing technology (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 20-22 (under Fragmented Analysis instead of Holistic Review Section), dated 09/19/2025)). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here, Examiner notes that Ordered Combination Rebuttal: An "ordered combination" is only inventive if it performs a function that is not "well-understood, routine, or conventional". In this case, the combination follows a standard data-processing pipeline (collect -> calculate -> weight -> output). Simply organizing abstract data steps in a logical sequence does not create a technological improvement if the underlying technology (the GPS or server) remains unmodified and performs only routine functions. Technological Improvement Rebuttal: To be eligible as a "technological improvement," the claim must solve a technical problem (e.g., signal latency or data storage efficiency) rather than a business or logistical problem (e.g., transport risk). Applying risk assessment algorithms to a routing environment is an "application" of an abstract idea to a specific field, which the 2025 USPTO Memo clarifies is insufficient for eligibility. Whole Claim Analysis: While the claim must be considered "as a whole," adding generic computer limitations to a sequence of abstract steps does not satisfy Step 2B. As established in Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (2025), merely implementing an abstract data-analysis method using conventional infrastructure does not move a claim into the realm of patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-20 even when viewed as an "ordered combination," describe a risk-management strategy—a fundamental economic and mental practice—implemented using generic technology for its intended purpose. The alleged "improvement" is to the data content (safer routes), not to the GPS routing technology itself. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite an inventive concept.
Thus, each step, when viewed individually, relies on generic computing components (servers, clients, processors) performing their intended, routine functions to execute abstract logic. Thus, when factoring in the additional elements in view of each of the claim limitations both considered individually and as a whole, for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 do not amount to "significantly more" under step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis.
Applicant then argues that the claims recite a sophisticated architecture in which multiple technical components operate in coordinate such as "historical transportation data is collected and analyzed to inform the RAA and the RAA processes this data to generate composite risk scores and routing parameters are dynamically adjusted based on these scores and a network-based coordination mechanism integrates the system with existing GPS infrastructure which results in a practical application that improves transportation routing technology" (see Applicant Remarks, Page 21, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 remarks here, Examiner points out that in 2025, the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and recent Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Recentive v. Fox) clarify that merely applying algorithms to data to inform a decision does not constitute a "practical application" if the underlying technology remains unchanged. Reason #1: Data Collection and Analysis are Abstract Judicial Exceptions. The argument claims that collecting and analyzing historical data to inform the RAA results in a practical application. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, "collecting and analyzing historical records" is a classic Mental Process. The fact that the data is "historical transportation data" is merely a limited field of use. In 2025, courts consistently hold that the specific nature of the data being analyzed (e.g., shipment values, damage accounts) does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. It is a fundamental economic practice of risk assessment—a Method of Organizing Human Activity. Reason #2: "Dynamically Adjusted Parameters" are Logical, Not Technical. The argument asserts that dynamically adjusting routing parameters based on risk scores constitutes a technological improvement. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the "adjustment" described (calculating odd ratios and applying weights) is a Mathematical Concept. Generating a "composite risk score" is a numerical output of a calculation. If the "adjustment" is merely a logical rule (e.g., if risk is high, change a value), it is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It does not improve the computer's ability to route; it only changes the content of the information being processed. Reason #3: "Network-Based Coordination" is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The argument suggests that integrating the system with "existing GPS infrastructure" via a network coordination mechanism provides a practical application. The USPTO 2024 AI Guidance Update emphasizes that using a "network" or "GPS infrastructure" as a conduit to transmit the results of an abstract analysis is insignificant extra-solution activity. Since the GPS device is used according to its "normal" and "conventional" function, there is no improvement to the "GPS infrastructure" itself. Simply saying an abstract idea is "network-based" does not save it from ineligibility. Reason #4: Solving a Business Problem vs. a Technical Problem. The argument claims the system "improves transportation routing technology." A technological improvement must solve a technical problem (e.g., signal latency, processing speed, or accuracy of coordinate calculation). The steps provided solve a business/logistics problem (reducing cargo damage). As established in Electric Power Group, an advance in a "limited field" (like transportation risk) that relies on the "collection and analysis of information" is not a technological improvement to the computer tool itself.
Thus, in conclusion, because the steps describe a method of data management and risk analysis that uses generic computer components for their intended purposes, Claims 1-20 remains directed to an abstract idea. It fails to integrate the exception into a practical application because it lacks a technical improvement to the functioning of the GPS or the remote server.
Applicant then argues that the Examiner disregards the real-time interaction between the remote server executing the RAA and the remote electronic device performing GPS routing regarding the steps of “synchronized transmission of adjusted routing parameters”, “integration with conventional routing algorithms” and “dynamic modification of GPS routing calculations based on risk metrics” and asserts that Examiner reduces these steps to mere data gathering” or “data outputting” ignoring their technical significance and contribution to the overall system (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 21-22, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that under the first point that Dynamic Modification is Incidental to Machine Learning (Not a Technical Improvement). The argument asserts that "dynamic modification of GPS routing" based on risk metrics is a technical contribution. In Recentive v. Fox (2025), the Federal Circuit held that "dynamically adjusted" or "iteratively trained" models do not represent a technological improvement because such adjustments are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Simply applying an established ML technique to a new data environment (transportation risk) is insufficient to confer eligibility absent a technical innovation in the underlying ML process itself. The second point is that Integration with Conventional Algorithms is a Field-of-Use Limitation. The argument claims the "integration with conventional routing algorithms" supports context-aware routing decisions. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, limiting an abstract idea to a specific environment—such as GPS routing—is a limited field of use that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The August 2025 Memo emphasizes that for a claim to be eligible, it must improve the functioning of the computer or another technology. If the client devices "function as they normally would" (as the argument admits), the improvement is in the quality of information provided, not in the technical operation of the GPS. Thirdly, synchronized Transmission is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The argument characterizes "synchronized transmission of adjusted parameters" as a technical contribution. Routine and conventional data transmission between a server and a client device is categorized by the USPTO and the Federal Circuit as insignificant extra-solution activity. In Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the court held that transmitting data over a network for display is mere "data outputting" that does not transform an abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, Examiner also cautions Applicant that even requiring the implementation of the computer functions in real time (“Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636 N.A. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit No. 2014-1506 Decided July 6, 2015 2015 BL 214690, 792 F3d 1363 page 160 last ¶ last sentence to page 1641 first ¶ first sentence”) (see Applicant Remarks, Page bottom of Page 21, dated 09/19/2025), or referring to the complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the Specification (see Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, 108 USPQ2d 1173No. 2011-1486, Decided September 5, 2013, 2013 BL 235751 728 F.3d 1336 page 1180 second to last ¶ - last sentence) does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method, and even if such level of detail would be explicitly claimed, it would still remain representative of mere mental limitations reminiscent to at least the ones found ineligible in “Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, U.S. Supreme Court No. 08-964, Decided June 28, 2010,130 SCt 3218, 561 US 593” at page 1005 ¶2, page 1012 ¶2-¶3 and page 1028 ¶4 when further referring to “Benson”.
The "real-time" nature of the synchronization is a functional goal rather than a specific technical implementation that overcomes a computer-based technical problem. The Examiner is correct in reducing these steps to "data gathering" and "data outputting." The claims functionally describe a concept (risk-based routing) without disclosing a technical improvement to the underlying GPS or ML architecture. Thus, the steps remain ineligible abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Argument #18:
(R). 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 22-24, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 (see Applicant Remarks, Page 22, dated 09/19/2025). 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.
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.
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 #19:
(S). 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 and cites the court case of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where specific animation rules led to improved animation outcomes as being analogous (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 23-24, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed solution artificially adjusts road segments length parameters based on risk factors constituting a specific technological improvement to existing computer-based routing systems, such as GPS enabled devices. This improvement arises from the technique of adjusting a length of each road segment by artificially altering length values, which establishes concrete rules for manipulating input routing data (see Applicant Remarks, Page 23, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner points out that the steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 for example of the instant application provided are not analogous to McRO for several fundamental reasons. Rules vs. Business Logic: In McRO, the patent was eligible because it replaced a subjective, human-performed creative task (lip-syncing) with a specific set of mathematical rules that transformed data in a way humans never did. The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application, however, take a traditional business/human evaluation (risk assessment) and implement it using a simple "if-then" logical substitution (artificial lengths). Technological Transformation: McRO produced a technological result: the automatic generation of 3D animation. Your process produces a business result: a route preference based on risk. The output remains a standard route, just biased by data manipulation. Improvement to the Tool: McRO improved the computer’s ability to perform a task (animation). The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application explicitly state they work "without modifying the routing algorithm," confirming the computer's tool (the algorithm) remains unchanged and unimproved.
Moreover, the argument that "artificially altering length values" constitutes a specific technological improvement to GPS systems is rebutted under 2025 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and current case law due to the following reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101 Alice v. Mayo test. Reason #1: Data Manipulation is not Software Improvement.
The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application does not improve the "functioning of the computer" (the GPS device or the routing algorithm). It merely manipulates input data to trick a generic algorithm into producing a specific result. Under Electric Power Group v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit ruled that the collection and manipulation of information for a particular purpose is an abstract idea, even if the data is "artificial”. Reason #2: B. Lack of Specific Implementation: To be eligible under McRO, the rules must be "specific" and "improve a technological process." The steps of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application recite a high-level outcome ("biasing a routing algorithm") using a "threshold value." This is functional claiming—it describes what is achieved (biasing) rather than a technical HOW (e.g., a specific new way a processor handles memory or signal latency). Reason #3: Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity: The "biasing" technique is a logical "trick" or "rule of thumb" rather than a technical enhancement. The GPS device is simply a conduit for displaying the results of a risk-management strategy. Reason #4: D. The "Business Problem" Rebuttal. A technological improvement must solve a technical problem. Your steps solve a business problem (transportation risk). As stated in Recentive v. Fox (2025), applying conventional algorithms to new data—even if that data is creatively "adjusted" to influence a result—does not constitute a technological improvement if the underlying computer system is used conventionally.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and remain non-analogous to the court case of “McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299” (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Argument #20:
(T). 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 and cites the court case of Diamond v. Diehr where the recited RAA algorithm reflects a tailored and rule-based technical manipulation of routing inputs, not a generic data analysis routine. This enables the client devices to function as they normally would, but with enrich input that supports more efficient and context-aware routing decisions, which constitutes an improved outcome. This approach is analogous to the system in Diamond v. Diehr (Fed. Cir. 1981) where conventional computer hardware was programmed in a specific way to improve the rubber curing process (see Applicant Remarks, Page 23, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments here, Examiner notes that in 2025, the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance clarifies that for a claim to be analogous to Diamond v. Diehr, it must integrate a judicial exception into a technological process that transforms or reduces an article to a different state. The claim limitation steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application provided are not analogous to Diehr and are patent-ineligible for the following reasons.
Reason #1: Distinction from Diamond v. Diehr -> The primary difference lies in the nature of the transformation and the industrial application: Diehr (Physical Transformation): In Diehr, the mathematical formula (the Arrhenius equation) was integrated into a physical process for curing synthetic rubber. The invention used constant temperature measurements to trigger a physical change in a mold (opening the press). The claim limitation steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application (Data Manipulation): These steps involve transforming data into other data (risk scores into artificial lengths). There is no physical transformation of an article. Under 2025 precedent, "biasing" a generic algorithm by feeding it "fake" data is a logical maneuver, not a physical or industrial improvement. Improvement to the Process: Diehr improved the process of curing rubber, leading to a better physical product. Your steps explicitly state they work "without modifying the routing algorithm," meaning the process itself (routing) remains technologically identical—only the business outcome (choosing safer roads) changes.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rebuttal to the "Enriched Input" Argument: The argument that "enriched input" constitutes a technological improvement analogous to Diehr is rebutted as follows: Reason #1. "Enriched Input" is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity -> The argument claims that "enriched input" enables client devices to function more efficiently. However, in 2025, the Federal Circuit has consistently ruled (e.g., in Recentive v. Fox) that providing "better data" to a conventional algorithm does not make the claim eligible. If the device "functions as it normally would," then there is no technological improvement to the computer itself. It is merely a "mere instruction to apply" an abstract idea (risk scores) to a generic tool (GPS).
Reason #2. Failure to Meet the "Practical Application" Standard (Step 2A, Prong 2) -> To be eligible like Diehr, the algorithm must be integrated such that it "improves a relevant technology." The claim limitation steps recited in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application do not improve the technology of GPS routing; it solves a business problem (transportation risk). Using "artificial length values" is a logical "trick" to influence an outcome. The USPTO's August 2025 AI Guidance Update states that logical rules used to "bias" or "weight" data for business preferences fall under Methods of Organizing Human Activity, not technological improvements. Reason #3. Lack of a "Specific Implementation" -> The argument characterizes the RAA as a "tailored and rule-based technical manipulation." Under Alice, simply calling a routine "tailored" or "rule-based" is insufficient. The rules must be technological (e.g., how a processor handles signals) rather than evaluative (e.g., risk thresholds). Because the "rules" here are simply "if-then" data substitutions based on a risk threshold, they are Mental Processes that do not require a computer to perform and thus do not constitute a technological advancement. Reason #4: The "Field of Use" Rebuttal -> The argument suggests "context-aware routing" is an improved outcome. Limiting an abstract idea (risk assessment) to a specific context (road segments/routing) is a limited field of use. Diehr was eligible because the formula was necessary to the technical transformation of rubber; here, the "artificial length" is not necessary for the GPS to function—it is merely a preference layer added on top of a generic process.
Thus, in conclusion, Claims 1-20 relies on "artificial" data inputs to a unmodified algorithm to achieve a business preference, it does not rise to the level of a technological improvement. It remains an abstract idea ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and non-analogous to the claims of Diamond v. Diehr (Fed. Cir. 1981) court case.
Applicant argues that "the distributed architecture described in the claims where a server-side risk assessment module provides modified parameters to client-side routing algorithms represents a concrete improvement in computer functionality namely in resource allocation and system efficiency” (see Applicant Remarks, bottom of Page 23 and top of Page 24, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument that a "distributed architecture" providing "modified parameters" represents a concrete improvement in resource allocation or system efficiency is rebutted due to the following points. The 1st point is that an "Improved Outcome" ≠ "Technological Improvement". The argument conflates a better business outcome (safer routing) with a technical improvement to computer functionality. In 2025, the Federal Circuit (e.g., in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.) held that applying generic techniques to new data environments without specific improvements to the models or algorithms themselves remains ineligible. "Context-aware routing" is a downstream benefit of the data, not a technical upgrade to the GPS receiver's hardware or the algorithm's code. Point #2: "Distributed Architecture" is Conventional. The recitation of a "server-side" module communicating with "client-side" devices is a standard, well-understood network architecture. Merely dividing an abstract process across multiple generic computer components does not create an "inventive concept" unless it solves a technological problem inherent to that architecture (e.g., network latency or security protocols). Point #3: Resource Allocation Claims Must Be Specific. To qualify as an improvement in "resource allocation," the claim must recite a specific implementation that reduces CPU load or memory usage compared to prior technological methods. Since the claim explicitly avoids modifying the routing algorithm, the client device continues to perform the same amount of computation—it simply uses different data values. "No additional processing burden" on client devices, as argued, actually proves that the device's technical functioning remains unchanged. The claim fails at Step 2A, Prong 2 because it describes a business risk strategy implemented using computer tools without any technical modification to those tools. It remains an abstract idea ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Argument #21:
(U). 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 24-26, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Examiner’s characterization of the claimed as WURC is incorrect, particularly with respect to the core technological innovation of adjusting road segment lengths based on external factors and cites the step of "adjust a length of each road segment by artificially altering length values for each road segment stored in a routing database communicatively coupled to the remote server so that 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 routing algorithm running on a remote GPS-enabled device towards road segments with artificially reduced length values without modifying the routing algorithm" (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 24-25, dated 09/19/2025). 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.
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.
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.
Applicant asserts that the “adjusting” step in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 represents an unconventional technical solution not found in prior art routing systems (see Applicant Remarks, bottom of Page 24 and top of Page 25, dated 09/19/2025).
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.
Applicant argues that “Examiner’s reliance on Versata to characterize the claimed ranking as conventional is misplaced. These operations are part of a technological process that improves the functioning of GPS-enabled routing systems, and as such, contribute to patent eligibility when implemented as part of a specific technical solution” (see Applicant Remarks, bottom of Page 25, dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner’s rebuttal to this argument is that "Data is not Technology" Rebuttal. The comparison to Versata Dev. Group v. SAP America (Fed. Cir. 2015) is accurate because both cases involve using a computer to perform logical/mathematical steps to achieve a business goal. Whether data is used for "pricing" (Versata) or "road risk" (the present claim), the technology used to process that data remains generic. Providing "enriched" or "modified" inputs to a system that functions normally is not a technological improvement to the system; it is a change in the information being processed. Reason #2: The "Functional Claiming" Rebuttal. The argument claims the RAA is a "technical algorithm." However, a "technical algorithm" must improve a technical field (e.g., computer science, physics). This algorithm solves a business/logistics problem (risk avoidance). As noted in Recentive v. Fox (2025), applying a process to a new category of data is not an "inventive concept" under Step 2B, regardless of how "integral" the steps are to the final output. Reason #3: The "Normal Functioning" Admissibility. The argument admits the method "enables the client devices to function as they normally would." This is a legal admission of ineligibility. To pass Step 2B, the claim must show that the device functions differently or better at a technical level (e.g., uses less memory, processes faster). If the GPS device functions "normally," then the "improvement" is merely a result of the abstract logic, which is not patentable. Reason #4: Comparison to "McRO" and "Diehr". Unlike McRO (which created new technological rules for animation) or Diehr (which improved a physical industrial process), these steps merely apply a risk-management strategy to a standard navigation interface. The "technological process" described is simply the routine operation of software receiving data.
Thus, in conclusion, because the claim relies on generic computer components used in a manner to process abstract data for a business outcome, it fails to provide "significantly more" than the judicial exception under step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis. Claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are analogous to the Versata Dev. Group v. SAP America (Fed. Cir. 2015) court case.
Argument #22:
(V). Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention is not simply an application of risk assessments to computers – it constitutes a specific and meaningful improvement to computer technology. In particular, it delivers: enhanced routing functionality through targeted manipulation of input parameters, seamless integration with existing routing systems without requiring algorithmic changes, intelligent context aware-routing with no additional processing burden on client devices and dynamic risk updates without the need for system reconfiguration” of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 26 (under Conclusion Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection section), dated 09/19/2025). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s remarks here regarding the “Rebuttal to the "Specific and Meaningful Improvement" Argument”, Examiner notes the following points. Point #1) Data Manipulation is not Software Improvement. The argument claims that manipulating inputs improves "routing functionality." However, under Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the collection, manipulation, and display of information is an abstract idea. Changing "data" (physical length vs. artificial length) is not a change to the "system" itself. The routing functionality remains identical; only the data being processed is different. Point #2) "Seamless Integration" confirms Conventionality. The argument praises the fact that no "algorithmic changes" are required. In a 101 analysis, this is a negative factor. To pass Step 2B, one must usually show a technical change to how the computer operates. If the integration is "seamless" and requires "no additional processing burden," it confirms that the claim is merely using conventional computer components in their ordinary way. Point #3) "Context-Awareness" is a Business Result, not a Technical Solution. "Intelligent context-aware routing" is a functional result that serves a business goal (safe transport). Under the 2025 Federal Register Update on AI, a claim must solve a technical problem (e.g., signal interference). Solving a logistics problem (road risk) using conventional computer tools is not a "practical application" that provides an inventive concept. Point #4) Dynamic Updates are Routine. The ability to provide "dynamic updates" is a feature of almost all modern network-connected software. Reciting that a server sends updated data to a client is a routine and conventional activity that does not rise to the level of "significantly more" than the abstract idea of communication. Thus, Claims 1-20 are maintained still as being patent ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
(A). In this instance, Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 were amended on 09/19/2025 to include the new limitation in the “adjusting” step of: “thereby biasing a routing algorithm running on a remote GPS-enabled device towards road segments with artificially reduced length values without modifying the routing algorithm.” The language in the Spec doesn’t appear to be enough to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) in this instance because of the complete absence of the “how” to support the claimed result. There is no support shown in Applicant’s Specification to corroborate “how” the “biasing a routing algorithm towards road segments with artificially reduced length values are achieved without modifying the routing algorithm”. Examiner refers to Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0022] which recites: “In some embodiments, the weight for each metric is set to a default value if the user does make an election. However, when the user makes a weight value election, he or she needs to determine which of the many different metrics are most important since the weight election will bias the outcome. In the simplest case, all metrics are equally weighted; however, this may not yield optimum results.” This appears to not be the same as recited in Applicant’s claim limitation for Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15.
The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. “Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 fail to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a) because there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. See Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971). Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 depend from Independent Claims 1/9/15 and therefore inherit the § 112(a) deficiency of Independent Claims 1/9/15 discussed above. Appropriate corrections are required.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A). The 2nd to last limitation of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 recites the following: “use the received adjusted length information as input parameters to its routing algorithm.” There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation regarding the phrase “its routing algorithm” when referring back to the previous limitations which recite “a corresponding routing algorithm” in the “transmitting step” and “a routing algorithm” in the “adjusting step”, thus rendering this phrase vague and indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner suggests to Applicant to amend the “use” limitation in Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 as follows: “use the received adjusted length information as input parameters to [[ the corresponding routing algorithm.”
(B). The “transmitting” step of Independent Claims 1, 9 and 15 recites the following: “transmitting adjusted length information for each road segment as calculated by the RAA to a remote GPS-enabled device running a corresponding routing algorithm the remote GPS-enabled device communicatively coupled to the remote server via a network, wherein the remote GPS-enabled device is operable to.” It is vague and indefinite as to whether “a corresponding routing algorithm” is any routing algorithm (i.e. a new separate routing algorithm), or whether it's the one referred to in the "adjust" step. Clarifications and/or correction are required.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 depend from Independent Claims 1/9/15 and therefore inherit the § 112(b) deficiency of Independent Claims 1/9/15 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. 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).
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 artificially altering length values for each road segment stored so that the 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, the primary abstract idea is assessing risk for transported goods based on historical performance metrics. Additionally, the underlying abstract ide for these steps is optimizing a commercial path based on risk-assessment metrics via data manipulation. 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 generic 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 generic 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)).
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” -> “According to some embodiments, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625