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 the Claims
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-25 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 6/13/2025. Claims 1, 13, 15, and 24 were amended; claim 3 was cancelled, and claim 26 was added in a reply filed 10/13/2025. Therefore claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 14-16, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 20-21, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 15 and 24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed in regards to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because they recite improvement over prior systems such as “[C]alculating an efficiency property for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the efficiency property based on the information regarding each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property compared with each other.” And “[W]herein obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units comprises obtaining information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and wherein calculating an efficiency property comprises calculating the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values”. Amended claim 1 recites limitations outputting the selected assignment and outputting instructions for controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to arrange for the refrigerated units to be allocated to routes according to the assignment and thus maximizing efficiency of the fleet of refrigerated units including environmental and cost improvements (remarks p. 19-20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea that is applied on in a computer environment in order to automate it and nothing more. The current claims do not improve on prior art systems by calculating an efficiency property…, obtaining information regarding the thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit or outputting the allocation of the units. These concepts are actually part of the abstract idea because they are concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind and concepts that manage interactions between people and personal behavior. The “calculating” step falls under mental processes because it can be done in the human mind, and outputting instructions [for the driver to follow] falls under certain methods of organizing human activity because it manages personal behavior. The step about obtaining information regarding the thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit also falls under mental processes because it describes data gathering and analysis.
Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement over prior art system but rather provide what might be an improvement in abstract calculation and process which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the processor is programmed to” should read “the one or more processors is programmed to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units; calculating an efficiency property for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the efficiency property based on the information regarding each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property compared with each other; obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of routes; calculating an efficiency metric for each of one or more potential assignments of one or more of the refrigerated units to the plurality of routes based on the efficiency property of each of the plurality of refrigerated units and the information regarding each of the plurality of routes; selecting one of the one or more potential assignments of at least one of the plurality of refrigerated units; and outputting the selected assignment and outputting instructions for controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to arrange for the refrigerated units to be allocated to routes according to the assignment, wherein the plurality of routes comprises a plurality of groups of routes, each of one or more of the groups of routes being associated with a respective distribution center, wherein each of the one or more potential assignments comprises an assignment of one or more of the refrigerated units to each of the groups of routes, wherein the method comprises obtaining information regarding each of the distribution centers, and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the information regarding each of the distribution centers, and wherein obtaining information regarding the one or more distribution centers comprises obtaining a geographical location of each distribution center and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the geographic locations, the method further comprising determining a practicality of relocating a refrigerated unit from one distribution center to another based on the geographic locations, wherein the relocated refrigerated unit is unassigned from the groups of routes associated with one distribution center and assigned to the groups of routes associated with the other distribution center, and wherein calculating the efficiency metric comprises calculating the efficiency metric based on the practicality; wherein obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units comprises obtaining information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and wherein calculating an efficiency property comprises calculating the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property based on their different thermal insulation.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of routing vehicle which is a method of organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and processes that can be done in the human mind ( with the help of pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, no additional element is present to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 21-23 and 26 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “obtain information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units; calculate an efficiency property for each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the efficiency property based on the information regarding each of the plurality of refrigerated units, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficient property compared with each other; obtain information regarding each of a plurality of routes; calculate an efficiency metric for each of one or more potential assignments of one or more of the refrigerated units to the plurality of routes based on the efficiency property of each of the plurality of refrigerated units and the information regarding each of the plurality of routes; select one of the one or more potential assignments; and output the selected assignment and output instructions for controlling the allocation of refrigerated units to arrange for the refrigerated units to be allocated to routes according to the assignment, wherein the plurality of routes comprises a plurality of groups of routes, each of one or more of the groups of routes being associated with a respective distribution center and wherein the one or more potential assignments comprises an assignment of one or more of the refrigerated units to each of the groups of routes; obtain information regarding each of the distribution centers; and calculate the efficiency metric based on the information regarding each of the distribution centers, and obtain information regarding the geographic location of each of the distribution centers; calculate the efficiency metric based on the geographic locations; calculate a cost of relocating a refrigerated unit from one distribution center to another based on the geographic locations, wherein the relocated refrigerated unit is unassigned from the groups of routes associated with one distribution center and assigned to the groups of routes associated with the other distribution center; and calculate the efficiency metric based on the cost of relocating the refrigerated unit, and obtain information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and calculate the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property based on their different thermal insulation.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of routing vehicle which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “one or more processors”, memory, and output device. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 15-17 and 24-25 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
No prior art was applied to the claims because Examiner is unaware of any prior art, alone or in combination, which discloses the limitations of the independent claims, especially “the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property compared with each other…wherein obtaining information regarding each of a plurality of refrigerated units comprises obtaining information regarding thermal insulation of each refrigerated unit and wherein calculating an efficiency property comprises calculating the efficiency property based on the information regarding thermal insulation, the plurality of refrigerated units having different values of the efficiency property based on their different thermal insulation.”
The claims requires a method that: obtains per refrigerated unit information including thermal insulation; calculates nit specific efficiency properties that different across units and calculates efficiency metrics for potential assignments of refrigerated units to routes.
The closest applied prior art is “Zhang”. Zhang assumes a fleet of identical refrigerated vehicles, which eliminates unit specific properties. It does not obtain per unit insulation information and it does not calculate unit specific efficiency properties. Furthermore, while Zhang discloses calculating an efficiency property metric, said efficiency property is not based on the thermal insulation of the vehicles but it is based on the fuel consumption and the metrics that affect the fuel efficiency. Accordingly, it fails to disclose multiple claim limitations.
The closest non-applied prior art is Tassou, “food transport refrigeration – Approaches to reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts of road transport”, published by Applied Thermal engineering in 2009, hereinafter “Tassou”. Tassou describes in general refrigeration efficiency metrics of different vehicle sizes. Tassou discusses thermal insulation. However, said discussion is in general and does not disclose obtaining the thermal insulation properties of different vehicles. Furthermore, these metrics do not disclose an efficiency metric that is calculated based on the thermal insulation.
The closest non-applied prior art is Silvia Estrada-Flores, “Thermal performance indicators for refrigerated road vehicles”, published by International Journal of Refrigeration in 2006, hereinafter “Silvia”. It discloses experimental measurement of thermal performance indicators (e.g. k-values, pulldown times) per vehicle), but it performs diagnostic testing and not logistics optimization. It does not calculate efficiency metrics for vehicle assignments.
The closest non-applied prior art is Benoit Michel et. Al, “Experimental and numerical study of heat transfer across insulation wall of a refrigerated integral panel van”, published by Applied thermal engineering in 2014, hereinafter “Michel”. It discloses experimental and numerical analysis of insulation walls for refrigerated vans including measurement of thermal conductivity, K-values, heat flux and ageing effects; evaluation of insulation materials (PU, aerogel, PCM, RMF) and modeling heat transfer under environmental conditions. However, it is strictly directed to insulation design and thermal physics and not logistics. It does not disclose these metrics for different vehicles.
Conclusion
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 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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628