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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 23-25, and 27-31 have been amended.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 21-31 have been previously added.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11-15, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite specific steps accomplishing a result that realizes a technological improvement in the computing technology performing dynamic lane determinations. Applicant submits that the technological improvement resolves processing resource consumption issues experienced by existing techniques and the current invention consumes fewer processing resources than existing techniques without sacrificing accuracy relative to such existing techniques.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., calculating shipping metrics based on historical shipping information) is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement to the efficiency of calculating shipping metrics and the improvement to the user experience, are indicative of improvements to the judicial exception itself. Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea (certain method of organizing human activity - commercial or legal interactions) into the field of ‘shipping lane determination’ amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception, does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the claims recite the following additional elements: ‘one or more processors’, ‘an electronic device’, ‘a plurality of shipping provider devices’, ‘a user interface’, ‘one or more memories’, ‘a tangible machine-readable medium’, ‘a machine’, ‘a geospatial indexing library’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, data storage, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for calculating shipping metrics based on historical shipping information, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as marketing/sales activities or business relations. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘determining… (i) at least one map tile that is associated with a first region and (ii) shipping metrics associated with the first region’; ‘receiving…an origin location and a destination location’; ‘determining…an origin geographic tile representative of a first geographic area that includes the origin location and a destination geographic tile representative of a second geographic area that includes the destination location…’; ‘determining a plurality of additional geographic tiles…’; ‘constructing a lane comprising the origin geographic tile, the destination geographic tile, and the plurality of additional geographic tiles’; ‘determining…a first pre-determined shipping metric to retrieve…’; ‘determining…whether a quantity of pre-determined shipping metrics…satisfies a threshold value…’; ‘determining…to retrieve the first pre-determined shipping metric…’; ‘aggregating…shipping information corresponding to shipments…’; ‘retrieving…the first pre-determined shipping metric’; ‘calculating…at least the second shipping metric based on the shipping information’; ‘rendering… at least the second shipping metric’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘one or more processors’, ‘an electronic device’, ‘a plurality of shipping provider devices’, ‘a user interface’, ‘one or more memories’, ‘a tangible machine-readable medium’, ‘a machine’, ‘a geospatial indexing library’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, data storage, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 21-31 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for calculating shipping metrics based on historical shipping information, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as marketing/sales activities or business relations. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21-31 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21-31 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21-31 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record are McAlister (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220114544), Malhotra (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230289045), Hurley (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110112761), Winship (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220253805), Shoemaker (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20100274609), and Sugrue (“A data fusion approach to predict shipping efficiency for bulk carriers”, 2021).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest determining an origin geographic tile and a destination geographic tile, wherein the origin tile and the destination tile are within a particular proximity of a set of roadways between the origin location and the destination location, determining a plurality of additional geographic tiles, wherein each additional geographic tile of the plurality of additional geographic tiles is within the particular proximity of the set of roadways between the origin location and the destination location, and constructing a lane comprising the origin geographic tile, the destination geographic tile, and the plurality of additional geographic tiles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628