Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 196, 20193, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 19.19194
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 19.19194, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 19.197(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 19.19194, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 19.197(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 19.19194. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 1/29/2026 has been considered.
Claims 7, 10, 13, 15-18 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 19-27 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 19019 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 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 19-27, under Step 2A claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 19), taking claim 19 as representative, claim 19 for example recites:
generating a partial Berth plan by removing, using a first operator, one or more vessels from the set of vessels in the initial Berth plan, where the first operator is selected from a set of first operators based on a first operator score;
reinserting one or more removed vessels into the partial Berth plan using a second operator to determine the first Berth plan, wherein the second operator is selected from a set of second operators based on a second operator score;
determining if the first Berth plan satisfies one or more first criteria relative to other Berth plans in a Berth plan set;
generating an updated first operator score and an updated second operator score based on whether the first Berth plan satisfies any of the first criteria, wherein the updated first and second scores are used in a subsequent iteration;
determining whether the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria;
in response to determining that the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria, updating the Berth plan set with the first Berth plan; and
outputting, via a displayed interface of an electronic device, the Berth plan set including the first Berth plan to the electronic device.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of iteratively generating and optimizing a plan using mathematical operation and decision-making processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Alternatively, the limitations also recite the abstract idea exception of “Mental processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 19 recite additional elements including electronic device and interface. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 19 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 20-27 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. The additional limitations merely recite performance parameters, alternative optimization techniques which are routing variations of the abstract idea.
In view of the above, claims 19-27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claim 19, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
The steps of removing, reinserting elements, scoring, updating, iterating are well-known optimization techniques. An ordered combination of conventional steps does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 19 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 20-27 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 19-27 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropke (“An Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search Heuristic for the Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows”), in view of Ye et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0170094) and further in view of Steenken (“Container terminal operation and operations research”).
Regarding claim 1, Ropke teaches at each of a number of iterations, (repeat..until stopping criterion is met, pg.459): generating a partial Berth plan by removing, using a first operator, (the destroy methods remove a number of requests from the current solution, pg. 458, where the first operator is selected from a set of first operators based on a first operator score; and reinserting one or more removed vessels into the partial Berth plan using a second operator (the repair methods reinsert the removed requests into the solution, pg. 458), wherein the second operator is selected from a set of second operators based on a second operator score, (each destroy/repair method is assigned a weight, pg 458, select destroy and repair methods, pg 459; determine if the first Berth plan satisfies one or more first criteria relative to other Berth plans in a Berth plan set, generate an updated first operator score and an updated second operator score based on whether the first Berth plan satisfies any of the first criteria, (the weights are adjusted dynamically as the search progresses, a score is computed, pg 460), wherein the updated first and second scores are used in a subsequent iteration, (update p- and p+ see algorithm 2, pg 459), update the Berth plan set with the first Berth plan, pg 459.
Ropke does not explicitly teach terminal control system, a carrier control system an electronic device a memory circuit, a processor circuitry, and an interface, obtain an initial Berth plan comprising vessel data of a set of vessels, output, via the interface of the electronic device, the Berth plan set including the first Berth plan and the second Berth plan to the terminal control system and the carrier control system, in accordance with a determination that the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria, based on plans in the Berth plan set, and via the processor circuity circuitry of the terminal control system, outputting.
However, Ye teaches databases 20 accessible to server 16 which can include inventory data, vessel data…generate a vessel schedule for the schedule request, [18], he four best branches (to nodes 34-37) can be selected based on some criteria, such as near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], branch to nodes 34-37 is next given a ranking r representative of the desirability of the corresponding vessel assignment, [28], he two highest ranking nodes from among nodes 40-47 are retained and the rest are discarded, [29], communicate the generated vessel schedule to user interface 12, [26].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the adaptive neighborhood search optimization of Ropke to the vessel scheduling system of Ye, because vessel berth scheduling is a known optimization problem and Ropke provides a well-known technique for improving scheduling solutions through iterative removal and reinsertion operations with adaptive operator selection.
Ropke substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose a system of controlling one or more vessels and equipment in a terminal, wherein the equipment in the terminal comprises one or more cranes and one or more transport equipment and the terminal comprises one or more piers; wherein the terminal control system is configured to control movement of the one or more cranes and the one or more transport equipment in the terminal; and wherein the carrier control system is configured to control, and via the processor circuitry of the carrier control system, movement of the vessel(s).
However, Steenken, teaches container terminals that include coordination and control of quay cranes, transport vehicles and storage systems, see pg. 25-26, terminal planning includes coordination of vessels and berth allocation, pg 17-18.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method of Ropke to include the above limitations, as taught by Steenken, in order to provide a dynamic space allocation to utilize storage space efficiently and to increase efficiency of loading operations, pg 25.
Regarding claims 2-3, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches determining if the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria comprises: determining a first performance parameter of a set of performance parameters based on the first Berth plan; and determining if the first performance parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria; the set of performance parameters is indicative of terminal performance and/or carrier performance of a carrier using the terminal, (the four best branches (to nodes 34-37) can be selected based on some criteria, such as near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], constraints for scheduling one or more vessels. An optimization engine can be used for generating a schedule based at least in part on the one or more constraints using a beam search algorithm. The beam search algorithm orders terminal/product pairs according to criticality and uses possible vessel assignments as branches, [7]).
Regarding claim 4, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches the set of performance parameters comprises one or more performance parameters indicative of one or more delays, and/or equipment efficiency, and/or missed connections, and/or bunker cost, (near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], scheduling considers constraints affecting timing, routing and cost, [27-29]).
Regarding claim 5, Ropke teaches updating vessel data of the initial Berth plan by performing adaptive large neighborhood search on the initial Berth plan, (ALNS) but does not explicitly teach in response to a disruption. However, Ye teaches schedule updated based on chancing constraints, [27-29].
Regarding claims 6, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches generating a partial Berth plan by removing, using a first operator, one or more vessels from the set of vessels in the first initial Berth plan comprises applying a first operator to the initial Berth plan to select a number of vessels in the initial Berth plan based on a first score, see pg 458-459, algorithm 1.
Regarding claim 8, Ropke teaches the processor circuitry of the electronic device is configured to update the first operator score associated with the first operator, (The scores for both heuristics are updated by the same amount, pg 462).
Regarding claim 9, Ropke teaches reinserting the one or more removed vessels into the first partial Berth plan comprises: applying the second operator and providing, after reinsertion of the selected number of vessels into the first partial Berth plan based on the updated vessel data of the selected number of vessels, the first Berth plan, pg. 458-459. Ropke does not explicitly teach to update vessel data of the selected number of vessels; However, Ye teaches schedule updates, vessel assignments, [27-29].
Regarding claim 11, Ropke teaches the processor circuitry of the electronic device is configured to update the second operator score associated with the second operator, , (The scores for both heuristics are updated by the same amount, pg 462).
Regarding claim 12, 14, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches determining the first Berth plan comprises updating vessel data of the initial Berth plan by performing a genetic algorithm technique on the initial Berth plan, (algorithm 1 and 2, pg 458-459) after updating the Berth plan set, determine if a termination criterion is satisfied; and in response to determining that the termination criterion is satisfied at a final iteration, wherein output the Berth plan set to a control system, (communicate schedule to user interface, [18]).
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropke (“An Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search Heuristic for the Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows”), in view of Ye et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0170094).
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropke (“An Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search Heuristic for the Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows”), in view of Ye et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0170094).
Regarding claim 19, Ropke teaches at each of a number of iterations, (repeat..until stopping criterion is met, pg.459): generating a partial Berth plan by removing, using a first operator, (the destroy methods remove a number of requests from the current solution, pg. 458, where the first operator is selected from a set of first operators based on a first operator score; and reinserting one or more removed vessels into the partial Berth plan using a second operator (the repair methods reinsert the removed requests into the solution, pg. 458), wherein the second operator is selected from a set of second operators based on a second operator score, (each destroy/repair method is assigned a weight, pg 458, select destroy and repair methods, pg 459; determine if the first Berth plan satisfies one or more first criteria relative to other Berth plans in a Berth plan set, generate an updated first operator score and an updated second operator score based on whether the first Berth plan satisfies any of the first criteria, (the weights are adjusted dynamically as the search progresses, a score is computed, pg 460), wherein the updated first and second scores are used in a subsequent iteration, (update p- and p+ see algorithm 2, pg 459), update the Berth plan set with the first Berth plan, pg 459.
Ropke does not explicitly teach terminal control system, a carrier control system an electronic device a memory circuit, a processor circuitry, and an interface, obtain an initial Berth plan comprising vessel data of a set of vessels, output, via the interface of the electronic device, the Berth plan set including the first Berth plan and the second Berth plan to the terminal control system and the carrier control system, determining whether the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria, in response to determining that the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria, updating the Berth plan set with the first Berth plan; and outputting, via a displayed interface of an electronic device, the Berth plan set including the first Berth plan to the electronic device.
However, Ye teaches databases 20 accessible to server 16 which can include inventory data, vessel data…generate a vessel schedule for the schedule request, [18], he four best branches (to nodes 34-37) can be selected based on some criteria, such as near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], branch to nodes 34-37 is next given a ranking r representative of the desirability of the corresponding vessel assignment, [28], he two highest ranking nodes from among nodes 40-47 are retained and the rest are discarded, [29], communicate the generated vessel schedule to user interface 12, [26].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the adaptive neighborhood search optimization of Ropke to the vessel scheduling system of Ye, because vessel berth scheduling is a known optimization problem and Ropke provides a well-known technique for improving scheduling solutions through iterative removal and reinsertion operations with adaptive operator selection. Appling such known optimization techniques to improve scheduling quality represented a predictable use of prior art elements.
Regarding claims 20-21, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches determining if the first Berth plan satisfies the one or more first criteria comprises: determining a first performance parameter of a set of performance parameters based on the first Berth plan; and determining if the first performance parameter satisfies the one or more first criteria; the set of performance parameters is indicative of terminal performance and/or carrier performance of a carrier using the terminal, (the four best branches (to nodes 34-37) can be selected based on some criteria, such as near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], constraints for scheduling one or more vessels. An optimization engine can be used for generating a schedule based at least in part on the one or more constraints using a beam search algorithm. The beam search algorithm orders terminal/product pairs according to criticality and uses possible vessel assignments as branches, [7]).
Regarding claim 22, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches the set of performance parameters comprises one or more performance parameters indicative of one or more delays, and/or equipment efficiency, and/or missed connections, and/or bunker cost, (near-term feasibility and/or best cost, [27], scheduling considers contraints affecting timing, routing and cost, [27-29]).
Regarding claims 23, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches generating a partial Berth plan by removing, using a first operator, one or more vessels from the set of vessels in the first initial Berth plan comprises applying a first operator to the initial Berth plan to select a number of vessels in the initial Berth plan based on a first score, see pg 458-459, algorithm 1.
Regarding claim 24, Ropke teaches reinserting the one or more removed vessels into the first partial Berth plan comprises: applying the second operator and providing, after reinsertion of the selected number of vessels into the first partial Berth plan based on the updated vessel data of the selected number of vessels, the first Berth plan, pg. 458-459. Ropke does not explicitly teach to update vessel data of the selected number of vessels; However, Ye teaches schedule updates, vessel assignments, [27-29].
Regarding claim 25-26, Ropke does not explicitly teach, however, Ye teaches determining the first Berth plan comprises updating vessel data of the initial Berth plan by performing a genetic algorithm technique on the initial Berth plan, (algorithm 1 and 2, pg 458-459) after updating the Berth plan set, determine if a termination criterion is satisfied; and in response to determining that the termination criterion is satisfied at a final iteration, wherein output the Berth plan set to a control system, (communicate schedule to user interface, [18]).
Regarding claim 27, Ropke teaches updating vessel data of the initial Berth plan by performing adaptive large neighborhood search on the initial Berth plan, (ALNS) but does not explicitly teach in response to a disruption. However, Ye teaches schedule updated based on chancing constraints, [27-29].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights