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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 06/13/2025, Applicant, on 09/04/2025, amended claims. Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “The claimed invention is improves the functioning of a computing system used for assigning workloads by preparing "a different simulated route via the simulation computer model" and reducing wasting of computer resources relative to conventional approaches by assigning the workload only after using the feasibility checker to determine that the different simulated route is feasible based on the second output of the simulation computer model.” (Remarks 09/04/2025)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has reviewed this case with an additional Primary Examiner. However, the Examiners did not find the amendments (or anything in specification) eligible over 101. Thus, the Examiner does not have any suggestions or amendments to make the subject matter eligible over 35 USC § 101
The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process”, and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes (receiving, analyzing, identifying, and assigning) and/or mathematical concepts (equations) grouping.
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing information regarding driver data. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing (modeling and projecting) data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract idea (organizing human activity). Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a Mental Process as it recites concepts performed in the human mind (observation and evaluation). The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The claims do not mention to any use of a specialized computer and/or processor. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for service project(s), and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Applicant’s use of generic computing elements are used to in a normal and expected way. There is no mention of any technological improvement, merely a use of technology to analyze and communicate information. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious, and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding a driver positioning and workload, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
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 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed. Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the “2019 PEG”).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 11-20), system (claims 1-10), and CRM (claims 21-22) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of 2019 PEG, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process”, and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes (receiving, analyzing, identifying, and assigning) and/or mathematical concepts (equations) grouping.
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (mental process and mathematical concepts), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: receiving, …at least a portion of driver informationfrom a user device associated with a driver of drivers ;building a coordinate system based on workload information, the driver information, and one or more constraints; identifying a threshold distance, for the workload, in the coordinate system; determining a positioning of the workload and identifying trucks associated with candidate drivers, from among the drivers, that are within a search radius of the workload based on the threshold distance; analyzing the coordinate system to determine a respective efficiency metric for each candidate driver of the candidate drivers for the workload based on predetermined criteria, including two or more of: (1) the workload, (2) an urgency of the workload, (3) apriority of the workload, (4) empty miles for each candidate driver of the candidate drivers picking up the workload compared to a current route, (4) a value based on a wait time for the workload for each candidate driver of the candidate drivers and a cost per minute of waiting corresponding to the workload, or (5) a value based on a time beyond a scheduled time of delivery for the workload and a cost per minute of being late to the workload; identifying the driver, associated with the user device, as a candidate driver of the candidate drivers in which the respective efficiency metric for the candidate driver satisfies an efficiency metric threshold; using, based on a first output ofthe simulation computer model, a feasibility checker to determine that the simulated route is not feasible .wherein the simulated route is not feasible based on the truck not being able to satisfy a timing requirement driving the simulated route wasting resources of the truck by assigning the workload only after using the feasibility checker to determine that the different simulated route is feasible based on the second output of the simulation computer model. Independent claims 11 and 21 recite the method and CRM for performing the system of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors…using a communication system and via a network… transmitting the workload, as assigned or modified, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device of the candidate driver… building using an optimizer implemented by a computer system of the system, a simulation computer model, that simulates a route for a truck, of the trucks, associated with the candidate driver from a first stop to a second stop, based on the workload information, the driver information, and the one or more constraints corresponding to the candidate driver with the respective efficiency metric that satisfies the efficiency metric threshold… sending. by the feasibility checker and to the optimizer, instructions to re-compute the simulated route: preparing, using the optimizer and based on the instructions to re-compute the simulated route, a different simulated route via the simulation computer model; using, based on a second output of the simulation computer model and after preparing the different simulated route via the simulation computer model, the feasibility checker to determine that the different simulated route is feasible, wherein the different simulated route is feasible based on the truck driving the different simulated route: and assigning or modifying ,via the network and a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device associated with the driver, the workload to the candidate driver to reduce; A method implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run at one or more processors and configured to be stored at non-transitory computer-readable media… (as recited in claims 1 and 11). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors…using a communication system and via a network… transmitting the workload, as assigned or modified, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device of the candidate driver… building using an optimizer implemented by a computer system of the system, a simulation computer model, that simulates a route for a truck, of the trucks, associated with the candidate driver from a first stop to a second stop, based on the workload information, the driver information, and the one or more constraints corresponding to the candidate driver with the respective efficiency metric that satisfies the efficiency metric threshold… sending. by the feasibility checker and to the optimizer, instructions to re-compute the simulated route: preparing, using the optimizer and based on the instructions to re-compute the simulated route, a different simulated route via the simulation computer model; using, based on a second output of the simulation computer model and after preparing the different simulated route via the simulation computer model, the feasibility checker to determine that the different simulated route is feasible, wherein the different simulated route is feasible based on the truck driving the different simulated route: and assigning or modifying ,via the network and a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device associated with the driver, the workload to the candidate driver to reduce; A method implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run at one or more processors and configured to be stored at non-transitory computer-readable media… (as recited in claims 1 and 11) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0028]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-9, 12-19, and 22) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-9 “wherein the workload information comprises[[.]] delivery information corresponding to when the workload needs to be delivered to a distribution center or a vendorand wherein the timing requirement is based on the delivery information; wherein the one or more constraints comprise at least one of: hours of service (HOS) rules, time windows, local ordinance rules, or location exceptions for the workload; analyzing the workload information, the driver information, and the one or more constraints; and mapping the workload information, the driver information, and the one or more constraints in a three-dimensional grid corresponding to latitude in a y-axis of the three- dimensional grid, longitude in a x-axis of the three-dimensional grid, and time in a z-axis of the three-dimensional grid; identifying a threshold distance for the workload in the coordinate system; and determining the respective efficiency metric for each driver of the drivers for the workload based on: U(w)t P(w)+ (D(w)+ W(w)+L(w)), where w corresponds to the workload, U(w) corresponds to an urgency of the workload, P(w) corresponds to a priority of the workload, D(w) corresponds to empty miles for each driver of the drivers picking up the workload compared to a current route, W(w) corresponds to a value based on a wait time for the workload on each driver of the drivers and a cost per minute of waiting corresponding to the workload, and L(w) corresponds to a value based on a time beyond a scheduled time of delivery for the workload and a cost per minute of being late for to the workload; analyzing the respective efficiency metric for each driver of the drivers for the workload by determining a regret metric using the following equation:R(w) = n*max(C(w, d)) — sum of top n (C(w, d)), where R(w) corresponds to a regret metric for the workload, d corresponds to a current driver being analyzed, and C(w, d) = D(w) + W(w) + L(w); determining the respective efficiency metric based on the regret metric using the following equation: C(w) = R(w) +U(w) +P(w); wherein the efficiency metric threshold is a lowest value from among the respective efficiency metrics for the drivers; building a simulation model based on the workload information, the driver information, and the one or more constraints corresponding to the driver with the respective efficiency metric that satisfies the efficiency metric threshold; and assigning the workload to the driver to reduce driver workload waste when an output of the simulation model satisfies a threshold ”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. The remaining dependent claims (12-19 and 22) recite the method for performing the system of claims 2-9. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wilson; Darren Edward. PLANNING OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS, .U.S. PGPub 20170046653 Techniques for planning of transportation requests may be described. In particular, zones may be generated based on historical information associated with transportation requests, where each zone may be configured to manage a number of the transportation requests.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625