DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-18, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 10, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on February 5, 2026, claims 1 and 15 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-18, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34, and 36 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, on Pages 10-25 of the RCE regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive or are moot in view of the amended rejection and amended claims.
On Pages 13-15 of the RCE, in comparing the claims to Research Corp. Techs., Applicant states “claim 1 recites that the geospatial data is stored in a shapefile, and further that the size of the shapefile [is reduced] by removing at least a portion of coastline points. This reduction of shapefile size improves data processing times (see, e.g., paragraph [0153] of the specification as published). Thus, similar to the independent claims found patent eligible in Research Corp. Techs, amended independent claims 1 and 15 now recite modifying a computer data structure, and so these claims are also allowable...The limitations recited in amended claim 1 include at least the same level of detail regarding the manipulation of computer data structures as that recited in the patent eligible claims of Research Corps. Techs…Therefore, similar to the patent eligible claims of Research Corp. Techs, the amended claims in the present application are not directed towards an abstract idea. ”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes reducing a shapefile’s size by removing data is not analogous to the manipulation of a computer data structure such as pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array (a mask), which results in a halftoned digital image, as in Research Corp. Techs. Rather, the shapefile is recited at a high-level of generality such that it generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) (e.g., shapefiles).
On Pages 15-17 of the RCE, in arguing the classification of the claims as reciting a commercial interaction or fundamental economic practice, Applicant states “none of the examples of methods or organizing human activity provided by MPEP….apply to the amended independent claims, and nor are the amended claims related in any way to these examples…Rather, the amended claims, which recite specific and technical limiations….do not fall within the boundaries of economic practices or commercial interactions…It is unclear to Applicant how the amended claims, which recite specific and technical limitations, are analogous to any of the [MPEP] examples.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and as discussed in the Final Rejection of October 10, 2025, while MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) lists examples of the enumerated groupings/subgroupings, the test for subject matter eligibility is not whether claims recite one of the examples. Rather, the Alice/Mayo test includes whether claims recite an abstract idea enumerated in one of the groupings/subgroupings. As explained in Paragraph [0015] of the specification, “There is a need therefore for port authorities, national governments, public health organizations, and shipping companies to be able to quickly and accurately assess vessel estimated time of arrival”, (emphasis added). Therefore, in light of Applicant’s specification, the abstract idea limitations discussed below of prediction of an estimated time of arrival for at least one vessel and updating of a map is a commercial interaction.
On Page 17 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “the amended independent claims are inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of concepts found by the courts to be abstract. In particular, limitations including ‘reducing, at the processor, using a direction-specific in-land one-way buffer, the size of the shapefile by removing at least a portion of coastline points in the plurality of connected points to reduce boundary-polygon complexity in the geospatial data’ intrinsically tie the claim to computer technology.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the mere recitation of computer technology does not take the claims out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity; and that “reducing…the size of a file” reflects the abstract idea, and that the file is a shapefile merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) (e.g., shapefiles).
On Page 18 of the RCE, in rebutting Examiner’s previous reference to Paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification for explaining why the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant argues “The fact that shipping companies have a need to be able to quickly and accurately assess vessel estimate time of arrival does not mean that the claims are inherently directed towards a commercial interaction or fundamental economic practice, and so it does not follow that the subject matter of the claims is ineligible.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the reference to Paragraph [0015] was intended to explain why the claimed “prediction of an estimated time of arrival for at least one vessel and automatic updating of a map” is for port authorities, national governments, public health organizations, and shipping companies to quickly and accurately assess vessel estimated time of arrival, which reflects that this is a commercial interaction.
On Pages 20-23 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “these additional elements (and the claim as a whole) integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application at least by providing an improvement to computer functionality, a technical improvement to the field of vessel tracking and to technology related to determining the estimated time of arrival for vessels…amended claim 1 recites a specific data structure (i.e. the shapefile, the size of which is reduced using the direction-specific in-land one- way buffer)…amended claim 1 also recites the manipulation and modification of this computer data structure. The specification similarly discusses the associated benefits.//paragraphs [0152]-[0153] of the application as published explain that:…[0153]… At 344, the shapefiles may be altered or curated. For example, an EEZ may be altered further to improve data processing times by reducing the size of the shapefile… Thus, the improvement in data processing times is not a result of simply using a general- purpose computer. Rather, the improvement results from the recited change to a computer data structure, as supported by at least paragraphs [0152]-[0153] of the application as published. For example, while the shapefile received in amended independent claim 1 may be a simple, nontopological format for storing the geometric location and attribute information of geographic features (see, e.g., paragraph [0152] of the application), amended claim 1 further recites reducing the size of the shapefile using a direction-specific in-land one-way buffer; this alteration or curation of the shapefile, which reduces the size of the shapefile, may further improve data processing times (see paragraph [0153] of the application), such as during the subsequent geospatial join of the vessel data and the geospatial data recited in the claim. As such, the amended claim improves computer capabilities through the modification of a data structure and does not simply use the computer as a tool.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as discussed above reducing the size of a shapefile is not is not analogous to the manipulation of a computer data structure such as pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array (a mask), which results in a halftoned digital image as disclosed in Research Corps. Tech. Furthermore, merely reducing the amount of data for the processor to process, is not an improvement to the computer itself, i.e., “improvement to computer functionality, a technical improvement to the field of vessel tracking and to technology related to determining the estimated time of arrival for vessels” as alleged. Rather reducing the size of a file reflects the abstract idea.
Similar to Trading Tech, Applicant is arguing a business process improvement i.e., “improvement… to the field of vessel tracking …related to determining the estimated time of arrival for vessels” rather than in any of the claimed technology itself (i.e., additional elements discussed below). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “For example, in Trading Technologies… the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 23-24 Applicant further argues that “amended claim 1 does not merely reduce the amount of data provided to a computer to process, as the shapefile is received at the processor before its reduction in size using the direction-specific in-land one-way buffer. In other words, amended independent claim 1 recites modifying the data structure after it is received, not simply reducing the amount of data provided to the computer.”
As discussed above, Examiner notes that reducing the size of the file reflects the abstract idea itself, and that the file is a shapefile merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) (e.g., shapefiles).
On Page 24 of the RCE, in comparing the claims to Example 42, Applicant sates “amended claim 1 is similarly allowable as it also recites specific improvement(s) (e.g., processing speeds) related to a change in a computer data structure (i.e. reduction of the size of the shapefile by removing at least a portion of coastline points in the plurality of connected points).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as noted above, reducing a shapefile’s size by removing data is not analogous to the manipulation of a computer data structure such as pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array (a mask), which results in a halftoned digital image, as in Research Corp. Techs. Rather, the shapefile is recited at a high-level of generality such that it generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) (e.g., shapefiles).
On Page 25 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Limitations such as ‘reducing, at the processor, using a direction-specific in- land one-way buffer, the size of the shapefile by removing at least a portion of coastline points in the plurality of connected points to reduce boundary-polygon complexity in the geospatial data’ are specific and technical in nature. At least this limitation goes beyond simply using a generic computer to perform a method.”
Examiner notes that “‘reducing…using a direction-specific in- land one-way buffer, the size of the file by removing at least a portion of coastline points in the plurality of connected points to reduce boundary-polygon complexity in the geospatial data” are limitations that recite the abstract idea; and that the file is a shapefile merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h) (e.g., shapefiles). Nothing in the claims recites a technological improvement in the shapefile or the processor itself. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 1-4, 7-11, 13-18, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-14, 29, 31, and 33 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 15-18, 21-25, 27-28, 30, 34 and 36 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-18, 21-25, 27-31, 33-34 and 36 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite a series of steps/functions of predicating an estimated time of arrival for at least one vessel and updating a map, by: providing historical vessel trajectory data, port-congestion metrics and environmental parameters; receiving geospatial data comprising a plurality of port boundaries, alphanumeric data and vessel data corresponding to a plurality of vessels, the plurality of vessels comprising the at least one vessel, wherein the geospatial data is stored in a file and each of the plurality of port boundaries comprises a plurality of connected points; receiving an estimated time of arrival request associated with the at least one vessel; reducing, usinq a direction-specific in-land one-way buffer, the size of the file by removinq at least a portion of coastline points in the plurality of connected points to reduce boundary-polygon complexity in the geospatial data; determining a geospatial join of the vessel data and the geospatial data; determining an alphanumeric join as a result of the geospatial join and the alphanumeric data, thereby forming a unified feature vector for estimated time-of-arrival prediction; in response to the estimated time of arrival request, determining an estimated time of arrival for the at least one vessel, receiving as input the unified feature vector; updating a map, the map comprising at least one vessel icon positioned on the map based on the vessel data and the estimated time of arrival for the at least one vessel, wherein the map, the vessel icon and the estimated time of arrival are updated upon receipt of each new vessel data input.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, of prediction of an estimated time of arrival for at least one vessel (under broadest reasonable interpretation), recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., (commercial interactions). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components ((i) memory (claims 1 and 15), (ii) a (trained) estimated time of arrival model comprising at least one machine learning model (claims 1 and 15), (iii) a processor in communication with the memory in (claims 1 and 15), (iv) a network device in communication with the processor (claim 1), (v) an output device in communication with the processor (claims 1 and 15), (vi) updating a user interface and automatic updating (claims 1 and 15); and (vii) a shapefile (claims 1 and 15) are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 15 as a whole merely recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) memory (claims 1 and 15), (ii) an estimated time of arrival model comprising at least one machine learning model (claims 1 and 15), (iii) a processor in communication with the memory in (claims 1 and 15), (iv) a network device in communication with the processor (claim 1), (v) an output device in communication with the processor (claims 1 and 15), (vi) updating a user interface and automatic updating (claims 1 and 15), and (vii) a shapefile (claims 1 and 15).
The additional element of (i) memory, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 87, 233, and 238 Applicant’s specification disclosing the memory unit 510) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ii) a (trained) estimated time of arrival model comprising at least one machine learning model, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 139 and 174 of Applicant’s publication disclosing model generation and See Paras. 202-203 of Applicant’s specification disclosing a machine learning model) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the estimated time of arrival model amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and the machine learning model amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of (iii) a processor in communication with the memory, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 87, 232 and 233 Applicant’s specification disclosing the server 500 having the memory unit 510) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iv) a network device in communication with the processor, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 230 of Applicant’s specification disclosing an ETA request received from a network device) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) an output device in communication with the processor in claims 1 and 15, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 31, 45, 251 and 263 of Applicant’s specification disclosing an output device/an output device, in communication with the processor, and Para. 89 disclosing that output information is applied to one or more output devices, in a known fashion) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (vi) updating a user interface and automatic updating in claims 1 and 15, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 301-303 and Fig. 16 of Applicant’s specification disclosing a user interface) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (vii) the file being a shapefile, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 134 of Applicant’s publication disclosing that a shapefile may be a simple, nontopological format for storing the geometric location and attribute information of geographic features) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the shapefile amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., shapefiles) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination for their respective claims (e.g., Fig. 5), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., machine learning; shapefiles), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 21-25, 28-31, 33-34 and 36 recite details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claims 1 and 15 these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 21-25, 28-31, 33-34 and 36 are ineligible.
Claims 13 and 27 recite the additional element of the output device comprising at least one of an audio output device or a video output device, which is recited at a high level of generality (See Paras. 31, 45 and 263 disclosing the audio output device and video output device), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (output devices) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, the 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. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, audio output device and the video output device, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 13 and 27 are ineligible.
Allowable over Prior Art
The claims are allowable over the prior art, because no prior art teaches the combination of the claim limitations as a whole. The closest prior art includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0244408 Balajan et al. (hereinafter "Balajan"). Balajan discloses useing location data, such as GPS, which is readily available for many vessels globally and historically through the automatic identification system (AIS). The approach clusters this data and then constructs a convex hull around these clusters for each port to define a port area. A vessel is then determined as departed when it leaves that port area - which enables accurate estimation of arrival times.
“How can I reduce the size of shapefile” by Geographic Information Systems dated October 20, 2019 (hereinafter “Geographic Information Systems). Geographic Information Systems discloses that .shp: This stores the geometry of the shape. To make this file smaller, store less geometry objects. You could do this by deleting detail you do not need. This could mean deleting interior boundaries (islands/holes) when you only need the outside boundary. You could also reduce the number of vertices by generalizing the shape.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0264268 to Moore et al. (hereinafter "Moore"). Moore discloses real-time vessel tracking by obtaining transponder data of a vessel operating within a navigable area. In response to obtaining the transponder data of the vessel, the vessel monitoring service evaluates the transponder data and a plurality of travel segments recorded for a plurality of vessels to identify a travel segment to which the transponder data corresponds.
WIPO 2019/034307 to Busson (hereinafter "Busson"). Busson discloses having determined the geographical position of the object, it may be transmitted to the tracker management node , where it may be presented on a map, a screen or a display device where the position of the object may be marked.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0134557 to Cova et al. (hereinafter "Cova"). Cova discloses in Fig. 3, locations of the tracked physical asset on a map.
"Predicting Ships Estimated Time of Arrival based on AIS Data" by Mekkaoui et al. (hereinafter "Mekkaoul"), dated September, 2020. Mekkaoui discloses the details of using neural network models to predict the arrival time of a ship to its destination using AIS data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0207387 to Krishnamachar et al. (hereinafter "Krishnamachar"). Krishnamachar discloses a transceiver receiving audio data such as a request for drawbridge operation, e.g., estimated incoming vessel arrival time, incoming vessel size, incoming vessel type, incoming vessel speed, incoming vessel position. Accordingly, the processor may transcribe the audio data to extrapolate incoming vessel information from the audio data.
“Geospatial Hadoop (GS-Hadoop) An efficient MapReduce based engine for distributed processing of Shapefiles” by Abdul et al., dated November 21, 2016 (hereinafter “Abdul”). Abdul discloses modified GeoTools library for in-memory processing of shapefiles to achieve speedup of ~8.3 for distributed processing to demonstrate considerable improvement in performance for processing thousands of extended shapefiles and millions of features on a Hadoop cluster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on Monday – Friday at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628