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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 17, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to abstract ideas. Specifically, on page 17, Applicant asserts “[t]hese limitations are not mental steps that can practically be performed in the human mind. A human mind cannot transmit different respective speed-control messages through a network interface to vessel control systems disposed on multiple ocean going vessels. Nor can the mind itself cause those vessel control systems to receive vessel-specific slow steaming speeds calculated from contemporaneous positions and designated arrival times to physically achieve optimized port times.” Examiner notes that transmitting data between computers over a network, while not an abstract idea, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant describes the messages which are transmitted as part of a vessel speed tuning process which is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As claimed, the optimized speeds are computed [abstract] by a computer [“apply it” or using a computer to implement an abstract idea which does not integrate into a practical application] and transmitted to a computer onboard a vessel [transmission over a network invokes computer as a tool to perform an existing process]. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). While the claimed invention may offer a “technological implementation”, that is not enough to show eligibility.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant asserts the claimed process of determining the optimized speeds “applies the optimization to a particular machine environment in a meaningful way: vessel control systems onboard corresponding vessels receive vessel-specific optimized slow steaming speeds for physically achieving designated arrival times.” Examiner notes the calculation of the optimized slow steaming speeds is an abstract process. As described above, transmitting that information to the vessel control system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant continues on pages 21-22, explaining that there is an integration into a practical application because the transmission of vessel-specific slow steaming speeds to vessel control systems applies the alleged exception in a meaningful way. Examiner emphasizes that producing and delivering vessel-specific speeds does not improve another technology or technical field. The improvement is within the abstract idea of determining those optimized speeds. The transmission to the vessel amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
With respect to Applicant’s comments regarding transmitting the speed to a vessel control system to physically achieve a designated arrival time, Examiner notes that sending the speed to the vessel control system is equivalent to a data transmission over a network. The specification at [0023] describes “[t]he queue optimization logic 100 then transmits a message 190 to each of the vessels 100A providing both an arrival time within the arrival time window 160 and also the determined slow steaming speed 180. In this way, the vessel speed of each of the vessels 100A may be tuned…” The speed is merely transmitted to the vessel control system which is portrayed as a computer device in figure 2. Merely transmitting the speed to the vessel control system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B, the while the ordered combination of claim limitations is novel over the prior art, a novel idea that is abstract remains ineligible. Merely using computers in their ordinary capacity to process and transmit data does not render the abstract idea eligible. Accordingly, the rejection is upheld but updated in view of the amendments.
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) 1-12 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) 1-12 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. More specifically:
queuing a set of vessels each steaming towards the port of call, each of the vessels in the set having a carbon emissions target; (observation – mental process – can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper)
determining for each of the vessels an estimated time to service the vessel including cargo unloading and refueling at different arrival times within an arrival time window; (evaluation – mental process – can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper)
computing for each of the vessels, a load factor resulting from different combinations of arrival time and resulting estimated times to service; (evaluation – mental process involving mathematical concepts - can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper))
optimizing an ordering of arrival for the queued set of vessels by minimizing aggregate carbon emissions and maximizing the load factor for each of the queued vessels according to different permutations of arrival times for the vessels in the set within the arrival time window, constrained by the carbon emissions target of each corresponding one of the vessels; (evaluation – mental process – can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper)
determining, based upon a contemporaneous position of each of the vessels and a designated arrival time within the arrival time window corresponding to the optimized ordering of arrival, slow steaming speeds for each of the vessels including slow steaming speeds when required to physically achieve the designated arrival time; (evaluation – mental process – can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper)
is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes mental processes and mathematical concepts. Further, the steps are indicative of certain methods of organizing human activity, as the claims recite steps or instructions one would follow to determine an optimized speed for a vessel. Independent claims 5 and 9 recite the same abstract idea. The nominal recitation of a system, computing device comprising a non-transitory storage medium and network interface… do not render the claims eligible under 35 USC 101. See the analysis below.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites “encapsulating the optimized speeds in different respective messages for the vessels; and transmitting… to each corresponding one of the… through a network interface…” which amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity to transmit data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Independent claim 5 recites a data processing system comprising a host computing platform. This amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim also recites encapsulating the optimized speeds in different respective messages for the vessels; and transmitting… to each corresponding one of the… through a network interface…. which amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity to transmit data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Similarly, independent claim 9 recites a computing device comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored therein, the instructions being executable by at least one processing core of a processing unit. This amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim also recites encapsulating the optimized speeds in different respective messages for the vessels; and transmitting… to each corresponding one of the… through a network interface…. which amounts to using a computer in its ordinary capacity to transmit data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2, 6 and 10 recite computing carbon emissions for each of the arrival times and prioritizing arrival times. These steps are mental processes in that they are evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper.
Claim 3, 7 and 11 recite the steps to compute aggregate carbon emissions. These steps are mental processes in that they are evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or with pen/paper.
Claim 4, 8 and 12 recite writing in a smart contract in a remote distributed ledger... This amounts to using a computer to perform the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) and also only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, 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 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101. The cited prior art taken alone or in combination fail to teach the combination of limitations as filed, specifically, computing for each of the vessels, a load factor resulting from different combinations of arrival time and resulting estimated times to service; optimizing an ordering of arrival for the queued set of vessels by minimizing aggregate carbon emissions and maximizing the load factor for each of the queued vessels.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190303859 - APPLICATION OF A MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
MODEL FOR AUTOMATIC VESSEL SCHEDULING IN LINER SHIPPING -
US 20240119399 - SYSTEM OF AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING SCHEDULE DESIGN VIA COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT FACILITATION
US 20240085187 - BLUE VISBY-OPTIMIZED COORDINATION OF WATER-BASED TRANSPORT VESSELS
US 11898934 - Integration And Tuning Of Performance Control Parameters Of A Vessel In Order To Meet Decarbonization Goals
F. Yu, F. Teng, Q. Shan, T. Li and Y. Xiao, "Continuous Berth Allocation Considering Carbon Emission and Uncertainty"
X. Quan, Y. Du and Q. Chen, "Integrating fuel consumption and vessel emissions into berth allocation”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights