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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and thus, the USC § 103 has been overcome. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant states “the claims are clearly eligible because the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.” (Remarks 02/26/2026)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has looked at the specification and does not see any mention on hardware elements describing the “computer system”; thus, the 101 software per se rejection is maintained. The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea 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 mathematical concepts.
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 (simulating) information regarding vessels and condition 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). 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 additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
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 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 vessel service system, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a physical computing device, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Without a physical computing device a processor and/or memory can not function.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 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, 3-11, and 13-20 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.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 11-20) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
However, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed towards a system but they do not recite structural features; the system/component fail to satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry because there are no physical/hardware elements in the claims to render the systems as a machine or manufacture, but instead these systems may be reasonably interpreted as being directed to software per se, which is not eligible subject matter. Therefore these claims appear to be directed towards software per se and software is not a statutory category of patentable subject matter. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The Office recommends amending the claims so that more structural features are recited in the bodies of these claims.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mathematical concepts 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), as set forth in exemplary claim 11, are: providinq a voyage simulator…; running, via the voyage simulator, a plurality of voyage simulations in parallel, wherein each voyage simulation utilizes: vessel information; voyage information; and different weather information; and determining cost information for each voyage simulation; wherein the voyage simulator utilizes a digital twin model of the water-borne vessel to perform the voyage simulations in parallel, at least some of the vessel information being utilized to define the digital twin model including performance characteristics and maintenance requirements to model data-driven interactions between physical components of the vessel and the weather information. Independent claims 11 recites the method for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: via a processor executing instructions stored in a memory…; a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor…; (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.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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: via a processor executing instructions stored in a memory…; a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor…; (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 fails to describes any generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements. 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 (3-10 and 13-20) 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 3-10 “wherein the voyage information comprises at least one of: departure location; departure date and time; an anticipated route; instructed or anticipated travel speed; destination location; and required or desired arrival date and time; wherein the cost information comprises at least one of: fuel consumption; emissions amount; and voyage duration; wherein the weather information is associated with a geographical area including the anticipated route and a first alternative route; wherein the plurality of voyage simulations comprises first and second voyage simulations, wherein the first voyage simulation utilizes voyage information associated with the anticipated route, and wherein the second voyage simulation utilizes voyage information associated with the first alternative route; wherein the plurality of voyage simulations comprises first and second voyage simulations, wherein the first voyage simulation utilizes weather information associated with a first period of time, wherein the second voyage simulation utilizes weather information associated with a second period of time, and wherein the first and second periods of time are temporally displaced at least one year from each other; wherein the first voyage simulation utilizes voyage information associated with the anticipated route, and wherein the second voyage simulation utilizes voyage information associated with the first alternative route; further comprising a probability module that is configured to determine a first statistical probability of anticipated cost for the voyage based on cost information from each of the plurality of voyage simulations; wherein the first statistical probability of anticipated cost is associated with a first anticipated cost, and wherein the probability module is further configured to determine a second statistical probability of anticipated cost associated with a second anticipated cost”, 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 (13-20) recite the method for performing the system of claims 3-10. 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:Sofman; Boris. Speed And Route Planning In View Of Weather, .U.S. PGPub 20210293573 An example method involves identifying one or more potential route segments that collectively connect at least two geographical points, receiving spatiotemporal weather information that predicts future weather conditions along each of the potential segments, and, for each potential segment, evaluating a partial cost function that comprises a summation of a set of segment-weighted cost factors, where at least one segment-weighted cost factor comprises an adverse weather risk factor based on the future weather conditions along the potential segment. The method also involves selecting, based on a minimization of a total cost function, a set of selected segments and corresponding segment target speeds for the vehicle to utilize while traversing between the at least two geographical points so as to avoid adverse weather conditions, the total cost function being the sum of partial cost functions associated with a set of segments that collectively connect the at least two geographical points.
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