DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 4 December 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11, 14-15, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 3, 6, 13, 16 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 7-8, 10, 12, 17-18, and 20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20; the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A because “while the claims may involve abstract concepts such as receiving logistics requests and generating quotes, amended independent claims 1 and 11 are not directed solely to an abstract idea because they include concrete improvements in the way rate sources are selected and activated in real time, providing a technical solution to a long-standing problem in logistics automation” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. the subcategories of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions). Whether or not the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem is evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Second, the claim limitations regarding rate source selection and activation in real time (e.g. “wherein the processor enables real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected”) represents the identified judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) ‘applied’ by a generic / general purpose computer (processor). Based on MPEP 2106.05(f), this is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more because it is no more than implementing a judicial exception on a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Hence, since applying a judicial exception on a computer is not a technical solution that represents an improvement to a technical field. Third, the longstanding problems addressed in the background / related art of the Applicant’s specification (e.g. Applicant Specification ¶[0002] handling shipping requests manually, overwhelmed workers providing rate quotes, tedious / repetitive tasks) are business / economic problems tied to a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities) and not technical problems. Also, using a computer to perform functions / tasks faster or more efficient (e.g. wherein the processor enables real-time activation of one or more rate sources based…) is not a practical application or significantly more because this is an inherent benefit of a computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Thus, the claims still recite a judicial exception / abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One; and the claimed way ‘rate sources are selected and activated in real time’ does not address a technical solution to a technical problem that would represent an improvement to a technical field or technology that is a practical application or significantly more in Step 2A Prong Two / Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “Regardless of whether or not independent claims 1 and 11 may somehow be construed as including limitations that fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas under Step 2A: Prong One, Applicant respectfully asserts that amended independent claims 1 and 11 integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A: Prong Two. In particular, amended claims 1 and 11 recite functionality enabling real-time activation of individual rate sources based on dynamic conditions or user-defined parameters. This is not merely a generic application of quoting logic, but instead provides a non-conventional technical improvement to logistics platforms by allowing runtime control of external systems, i.e., rate sources such as, rate engines, market intelligence feeds, etc., which eliminates the need for pre-configuration or provider intervention. This is a marked departure from traditional systems, which rely on static configurations or pre-integrated APIs.” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, using a computer to perform functions / tasks faster or more efficient (e.g. ‘wherein the processor enables real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters’) is not a practical application or significantly more because this is an inherent benefit of a computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Second, this is not an improvement that is representative of a practical application because at best this is a business / entrepreneurial improvement of the judicial exeption (e.g. activation of a rate source based on user defined parameters represents certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions), and the additional element is only ‘applying’ the judicial exception by a computer and which is not practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Third, the rate engines in the claims only provide high-level extra-solution data gathering for the subsequent judicial exception steps of processing of the rate request and calculating a final rate, without any technical details regarding accessing the rate engines provided in the claims. As claimed, the rate engines represent using a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool (i.e. to receive data), and without any technical, particular steps they do not provide a practical application, per MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Fourth, the claims do not include the argued market intelligence feeds. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Fifth, providing user level access instead of requiring API connections to interact with other platforms or websites does not provide a technical advantage, since providing logistics quotes for requests is not limited to Internet technologies since logistics rate quoting has long existed outside of technology. See Wikipedia “History of United States postage rates” (<http://web.archive.org/web/20191108141030/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates> captured on 8 November 2019 Using Wayback Machine) detailing published rates quoted for shipping letters / packages dating back to 1863, i.e. before Internet / API technology. Hence, the departure from API is long established in logistics rate quoting and not a technological improvement. These features do not provide a technical improvement or an improvement to technology that is a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Applicant respectfully submits that amended limitation claim 1 adds a specific limitation that: 1) improves the functioning of the computing system itself in the logistics and transportation industry; and 2) adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of the logistics and transportation industry. Applicant respectfully asserts that all of these features, especially when viewed in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception” (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. Examiner disagrees. Regarding (1), the Applicant’s invention is more representative of implementing a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) in a computer environment and using computers as a tool than improving computer systems themselves outside of a judicial exception. Regarding (2) the technical elements in the claims are all recited at a high level of detail and either represent (a) generic computers or general computer components implementing the judicial exception: a processor, logistics request receiver (e.g. email / website / electronic document), at least one GUIs includes an automated quoting validator function (e.g. general computer component with program instructions), computing device, graphical user interface, one or more rate engines (e.g. computer hardware), one or more GUIs includes a text analysis function (e.g. general computer component with program instructions), one or more bots (e.g. software code); (b) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment: the logistics receiver as email / website / electronic document (i.e. Internet, computers) noting that mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using computers and the Internet does not provide a practical application or significantly more, and using natural language processing (NLP) / artificial intelligence (AI) noting that there are no claimed details about the technical steps or details about the NLP or AI algorithms; or (c) extra-solution use of computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, transmit data): performing keystroke input (the one or more bots and screen are receiving data), selecting user defined parameter options (the processor, graphical display, drop-down menus are receiving data), recording (the processor is storing data), accessing rate engines / obtaining rate related information (the rate engines and processor are retrieving data). Since all of the additional elements either represent (a) adding the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f), (b) generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), or (c) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and use computers a tool per MPEP 2106.05(f), none of these additional elements provide a practical application or significantly more. Also, when viewed in combination, there is nothing that changes what is otherwise present when viewing these additional elements individually. Hence, none of these limitations apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way to provide significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Please consider paragraph [0073] of the Subject Application, reproduced below: [0073] Embodiments of automated quoting process 10 provide numerous advantages over existing approaches. Some of these may include, but are not limited to, providing access through user level, which doesn't require API connections to interact with other platforms or websites, the user does not have to enter the load information or lane manually, the automation takes it from the request, parameters at tenderer email address level, customizable parameter lists, lane and location volume exception handling, not just all or nothing, preset calendar for additional margin, mileage tiered margin per customer per equipment type or per tenderer per equipment type, copy parameter sets from another built set to save time, saved parameter sets for ease of re-use, not a rate engine, performs the same process a human should do using rate sources, human intervention not required every task, process can be completed with no human interaction, provides the ability to turn on and off rate sources in real time, not preset and provider determines where rates come from or have to ask provider to make changes when needed, option of margin by % or $ amount, location exception by shipper or receiver, not just city, st, provides the ability to select rate index option, automation moves to next index if no results returned, hours of the day options at load pickup level or quote request level, connects the shipper rate request with carrier truck rates from any rate engine used by the third party logistics, doesn't require shipper input or carrier input into the system, audit option with the validator if the user wants a stop point or if information needs confirmed prior to submitting, etc… As disclosed in paragraph [0073], the system ‘provides the ability to turn on and off rate sources in real time… not preset and provider determines where rates come from or have to ask provider to make changes when needed.’ This demonstrates a concrete technological improvement: users and systems can respond to real-time conditions (e.g., platform availability, market volatility, performance) without halting operations or reconfiguring backend infrastructure” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The advantages provided in ¶[0070] (as filed) do not provide technological advantages. First, the ability to turn on and off rate sources without having to ask a provider to make changes represents a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions), and at best this is only a business or entrepreneurial improvement of the judicial exception (i.e. having one individual turning on/off a rate source instead of having another), instead of a technological improvement. Second, providing user level access instead of requiring API connections to interact with other platforms or websites does not provide a technical advantage, since providing logistics quotes for requests is not limited to Internet technologies since logistics rate quoting has long existed outside of technology. See Wikipedia “History of United States postage rates” (<http://web.archive.org/web/20191108141030/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates> captured on 8 November 2019 Using Wayback Machine) detailing published rates quoted for shipping letters / packages dating back to 1863, i.e. before Internet / API technology. Next, the advantages achieved based on automation and improved speed or efficiency are inherent to a computer implementation and also do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Next, the remaining business and customization advantages listed (e.g. setting option margins / rate index, rate default rules, connecting shipper / carrier / third parties, audit options) are each certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) that (1) are not claimed and (2) are representative of a judicial exception rather than a technological process and problem. Hence, the claims and specification ¶[0070] (as filed) do not support an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to a technology or technical field. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of BASCOM because “independent claims 1 and 11 also improve prior systems by introducing a flexible, runtime-configurable quoting engine. This is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, as traditional quoting systems cannot dynamically change their data source behavior without developer intervention or system updates” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. First, note that the claims in BASCOM were eligible because they presented a non-generic arrangement of elements that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea in an ordered combination. This is in contrast to the Applicant's claimed invention which only uses a generic computers / general computer components (i.e. a processor, logistics request receiver (e.g. email / website / electronic document), at least one GUIs includes an automated quoting validator function, computing device, graphical user interface, one or more rate engines, one or more GUIs includes a text analysis function, (claim 11) one or more bots) to implement the invention. Also see Applicant specification ¶[0012] reciting that the invention may take the form of entirely hardware / entirely software / or a combination of software and hardware without detailing any particular arrangement. There is no particular arrangement provided in the claims regarding the positioning of the components, further demonstrating that the arrangement is generic. This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general computer, and does not present a particular ordered combination of elements. The combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, generally linking high-level use of particular technologies, and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement. Thus, the claims do not present the same criteria as the eligible claims in BASCOM Global v. AT&T Mobility LLC. Second, whether activities are well-understood, routine, conventional activities are evaluated for the additional elements or combination of elements in Step 2B. The activity of changing the source behavior (e.g. real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected for use to generate the at least one quote) is part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1 February 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term ‘function’ in the limitations “a text analysis function” and “an automated quoting validator function” is being interpreted by the Office as “a computer subroutine”, using the Merriam-Webster online definition of a ‘function’ <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/function>, and in view the Applicant’s response on 4 December 2025 pg. 9 acknowledging that “neither the ‘automated quoting validator function’ or the ‘text analysis function’ are structural components in their own right”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20:
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 recite a method; and claims 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 recite a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 recites identifying, a logistics request…, to extract and process information; access the logistics request at the user level without using application programing interface (API) connections; in response to identifying, extracting the information from the logistics request; comparing and validating, the extracted information; to read raw text from the logistics request and to understand where data was extracted incorrectly, associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories including at least one of a pick up location, a delivery location, a commodity, a weight, or physical dimensions; providing, the extracted information to generate at least one quote…; to publish a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined [source]; generating, the at least one quote for the logistics request… based upon, at least in part, one or more user defined parameters, real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected for use… to generate the at least one quote, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a percentage margin outside of which quotes are discarded, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define an afterhours window and to charge an additional fee for shipments that are required to be picked up during this predefined period of time, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a minimum rate and profit based on different distance tiers; in response to the logistics request, processing, the at least one quote based off scored parameters including a quoting algorithm and a plurality of quoting parameters; and once the information is extracted and validated… processing at least one rate request; calculating a final rate; and publishing the final rate, …do not require input from a shipper or carrier. Independent claim 11 recites to identify a logistics request…, to extract and process information; to access the logistics request at the user level without using application programing interface (API) connections; to mimic human interaction; in response to identifying, to extract the information from the logistics request; to compare and validate, the extracted information; to read raw text from the logistics request and to understand where data was extracted incorrectly; to associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories including at least one of a pick up location, a delivery location, a commodity, a weight, or physical dimensions; to provide the extracted information to generate at least one quote…; to publish a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined [source]; to generate, the at least one quote for the logistics request based upon, at least in part, one or more user defined parameters, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a percentage margin outside of which quotes are discarded, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define an afterhours window and to charge an additional fee for shipments that are required to be picked up during this predefined period of time, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a minimum rate and profit based on different distance tiers; real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected for use… to generate the at least one quote, in response to the logistics request, to process the at least one quote based off scored parameters including a quoting algorithm and a plurality of quoting parameters; and once the information is extracted and validated… process at least one rate request; calculate a final rate; and publish the final rate, …do not require input from a shipper or carrier.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities; and individual limitations in the claims also recite mental processes and a mathematical concept.
First, the limitations of (claim 1) identifying, a logistics request…, to extract and process information; access the logistics request at the user level without using application programing interface (API) connections; in response to identifying, extracting the information from the logistics request; comparing and validating, the extracted information; to read raw text from the logistics request and to understand where data was extracted incorrectly, associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories including at least one of a pick up location, a delivery location, a commodity, a weight, or physical dimensions; providing, the extracted information to generate at least one quote…; to publish a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined [source]; generating, the at least one quote for the logistics request based upon, at least in part, one or more user defined parameters, real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected for use… to generate the at least one quote, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a percentage margin outside of which quotes are discarded, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define an afterhours window and to charge an additional fee for shipments that are required to be picked up during this predefined period of time, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a minimum rate and profit based on different distance tiers; in response to the logistics request, processing, the at least one quote based off scored parameters including a quoting algorithm and a plurality of quoting parameters; and once the information is extracted and validated… processing at least one rate request; calculating a final rate; and publishing the final rate, …do not require input from a shipper or carrier; and (claim 11) to identify a logistics request…, to extract and process information; to access the logistics request at the user level without using application programing interface (API) connections; to mimic human interaction; in response to identifying, to extract the information from the logistics request; to compare and validate, the extracted information; to read raw text from the logistics request and to understand where data was extracted incorrectly; to associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories including at least one of a pick up location, a delivery location, a commodity, a weight, or physical dimensions; to provide the extracted information to generate at least one quote…; to publish a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined [source]; to generate, the at least one quote for the logistics request based upon, at least in part, one or more user defined parameters, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a percentage margin outside of which quotes are discarded, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define an afterhours window and to charge an additional fee for shipments that are required to be picked up during this predefined period of time, wherein at least one of the one or more user defined parameters is configured to define a minimum rate and profit based on different distance tiers; real-time activation of one or more rate sources based on the one or more user defined parameters, wherein the activated rate sources are dynamically selected for use… to generate the at least one quote, in response to the logistics request, to process the at least one quote based off scored parameters including a quoting algorithm and a plurality of quoting parameters; and once the information is extracted and validated… process at least one rate request; calculate a final rate; and publish the final rate, …do not require input from a shipper or carrier are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes identifying a logistics request…, accessing the logistics request at the user level…, activat[ing] one or more rate sources…, dynamically select[ing] rate sources for use…, generating at least one quote…, calculating a final rate…, and publishing the final rate; commercial interactions includes identifying a logistics request…, generating at least one quote…, calculating a final rate…, and publishing the final rate; marketing or sales activities or behaviors includes identifying a logistics request…, accessing the logistics request at the user level…, extracting and processing information…, extracting information from the logistics request…, comparing and validating the extracted information…, associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories…, providing the extracted information…, generating at least one quote…, processing at least one rate request…, calculating a final rate…, and publishing the final rate; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes identifying a logistics request…, accessing the logistics request at the user level…, extracting and processing information…, mimicking human interaction…, extracting information from the logistics request…, comparing and validating the extracted information…, reading raw text…, understanding where data was extracted incorrectly…, associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories…, providing the extracted information…, generating at least one quote…, publishing a list of one or more requests extracted from the body…, activat[ing] one or more rate sources…, dynamically select[ing] rate sources for use…, processing at least one rate request…, calculating a final rate…, and publishing the final rate, do not require input from a shipper or carrier; and following rules or instructions includes accessing the logistics request at the user level…, extracting and processing information…, extracting information from the logistics request…, comparing and validating the extracted information…, reading raw text…, understanding where data was extracted incorrectly…, associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories…, providing the extracted information…, generating at least one quote…, publishing a list of one or more requests extracted from the body…, activat[ing] one or more rate sources…, dynamically select[ing] rate sources for use…, processing at least one rate request…, calculating a final rate…, and publishing the final rate, do not require input from a shipper or carrier. The presence of generic and general computer components such as a processor, logistics request receiver (e.g. email / website / electronic document), at least one GUIs includes an automated quoting validator function (e.g. general computer component and program instructions, see Application specification ¶[0018-20]; and also note that ‘quoting’ and ‘validat[ing]’ at this high level are certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior), computing device, graphical user interface, one or more rate engines (e.g. computer hardware, see Applicant specification ¶[0012]), one or more GUIs includes a text analysis function (e.g. general computer component and program instructions, see Application specification ¶[0018-20]; and also note that ‘text analysis’ at this high level is certain method of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior), (claim 11) one or more bots (e.g. software code, see Applicant specification ¶[0036], computer), and performing steps ‘automatically’ or ‘with no human interaction’ does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of identifying, a logistics request…, to extract and process information; in response to identifying, extracting the information from the logistics request; comparing and validating, the extracted information; reading raw text…, understanding where data was extracted incorrectly…, to associate raw text read from the logistics request with one or more data categories…, to generate at least one quote…; extracting from the body…; generating, the at least one quote for the logistics request based upon, at least in part, one or more user defined parameters; activat[ing] one or more rate sources…, dynamically select[ing] rate sources for use…; in response to the logistics request, processing, the at least one quote based off scored parameters including a quoting algorithm and a plurality of quoting parameters; and once the information is extracted and validated… processing at least one rate request; and calculating a final rate as drafted are processes that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic / general computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, logistics request receiver (e.g. email / website / electronic document), at least one GUIs includes an automated quoting validator function (e.g. general computer component and program instructions, see Application specification ¶[0018-20]; and also note that ‘quoting’ and ‘validat[ing]’ at this high level are also mental processes: judgment), computing device, graphical user interfaces, one or more rate engines (e.g. computer hardware, see Applicant specification ¶[0012]), one or more GUIs include a text analysis function (e.g. general computer component and program instructions, see Application specification ¶[0018-20]; and also note that ‘text analysis’ at this high level is a mental process: evaluation), and performing steps ‘automatically’ or ‘with no human interaction’, nothing in the claim elements preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, identifying in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing a logistics request in a document; extracting and processing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating and judging information within a request / body of a source; comparing and validating in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluating extracted information; reading in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing raw text; understanding in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating and judging incorrect data extracted information; associating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating raw text and judging data categories; generating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging a quote by evaluating parameters; activating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating user defined parameters and then judging to use a rate source; selecting rate sources in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging to use a rate source; processing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating and judging a quote using scored parameters and an algorithm; calculating in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging a final rate. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Third, the limitations regarding generating at least one quote and calculating a final rate recite mathematical concepts. Note that in this claim, the generating steps are determined to recite a mathematical concept because broadest reasonable interpretation includes a mathematical relationship between a quote and parameters (and this interpretation is also supported in Applicant’s specification ¶[0047]). The calculating step is determined to recite a mathematical calculation because it explicitly states it is a calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a processor, logistics request receiver (e.g. email / website / electronic document), automated quoting validator function, computing device, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), one or more rate engines, text analysis function, (claim 11) one or more bots, computer) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform otherwise manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Also, (claim 11) using one or more bots in the ‘mimicking’ limitation does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. robotic process automation (RPA)), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of the logistics request receiver as email / website / electronic documents (e.g. wherein the logistics request receiver is selected from a group consisting of an email, a website, or one or more electronic documents; and …a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined email address) in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet, computers), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Also, the courts have found that using additional elements that amount to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using computers and the Internet does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Ultramercial Inc v. Hulu (Fed. Cir. 2014). Also, the element of API in the limitation wherein the logistics request receiver is configured to access the logistics request at the user level without using application programing interface (API) connections at this high level of detail is only a general linkage of the judicial exception to a technological environment / field of use which is not a practical application. Note that broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would include any means of logistics request receiver access of the logistics request at the user level without using API connection (e.g. manually accessing, visibly accessing) therefore this is not a linkage to a particular technical environment. Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 11) performing keystroke input / point / click and its steps of wherein one or more bots are configured to… perform one or more of a keystroke input, a point, and a click on the screen are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the mimicking human interactions), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the one or more bots, and screen (general computer components) are only being used as a tool to perform keystroke inputs / points / clicks, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). This limitation also represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (e.g. to receive data), and adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir 2016). Next, using one or more bots in the limitation does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. robotic process automation (RPA)), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding these inputting a keystroke, pointing / clicking on a screen more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (obtaining inputs / selections). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of extracting (e.g. using an artificial intelligence to extract and process information; extracting information from the logistics request; a list of one or more requests extracted from the body of a predefined email address) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent providing / generating), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor (generic computer) / computer, is only being used as a tool in the extracting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Next, using artificial intelligence in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. machine learning, AI), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Without any particular, technical steps regarding artificial intelligence in the claims, this general association is no more than programming a computer to perform the extracting and processing. With no particular technical steps regarding extracting (and processing) and only a general association to a computer technology, this is no more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (obtaining information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of reading (e.g. wherein the one or more GUIs include a text analysis function configured to read raw text from the logistics request) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent understanding), and also amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the one or more GUIs include a text analysis function (general computer component and program instructions, see Application specification ¶[0018-20]), is only being used as a tool in the reading, which is also not i