DETAILED ACTION
Response received on January 21, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 12-13 are cancelled, and Claim 28 is newly added. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-19, 26, and 28 are pending.
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
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/19/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-19, 26, and 28 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/262,097 was filed on 7/19/2023, has a 371 of PCT/EP2022/051949 with a filing date of 1/27/2022. This application claims foreign priority to foreign application DKPA202170045 with a priory date of 1/29/2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of January 21, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. Applicant' s amendment’s filed January 21, 2026, with respect to claim 1 has been fully considered.
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, 3-7, 9-10, 14-19, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-19, and 28 are directed to a method (process) and claim 26 is directed to an electronic device (manufacture/machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method, performed by an electronic device, for optimizing a shipping route, the method comprising: obtaining operational input data associated with sea journey, the operational input data comprising: a source data element and a destination data element; temporal data comprising a weather parameter and a maritime parameter; and booking data indicative of one or more route constraints; obtaining historical data comprising a set of historical routes previously travelled by one or more ships; determining, based on at least the source data element and the destination data element, and using a nearest neighbor algorithm, a first subset of the set of historical routes based on similarity to the intended sea journey; inputting the operational input data and the first subset into a route optimization model, the route optimization model configured to determine an optimized route set comprising a route parameter associated with a carbon emission parameter, the optimized route set determined based at least in part on the booking data and the temporal data; and outputting, by the route optimization model and based on the optimized route set, a result indicative of an optimized route, the route optimization model configured to output the result indicative of the optimized route based on the carbon emission parameters of the optimized route set; dynamically updating the optimized route during the sea journey by: (a) obtaining updated temporal data along the shipping route and (b) re-executing the route optimization model based on the updated temporal data to compute ship control parameters that maintain or update a trajectory of the optimized route while maintaining the carbon emission parameter below a particular threshold and transmitting the optimized route to a navigation system of a ship associated with sea journey to adjust the navigation of the ship according to the computed ship control parameters.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of route optimization based on previous historical shipping routes, in order to improve environmental impact, specifically reducing carbon emissions as stated in page 3, lines 14-17 of the specification. Route optimization to reduce carbon emissions involves managing logistics and operational decisions to comply with environmental regulations, which are centered on fulfilling legal and commercial obligations. Thus, these recited limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a computer the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the electronic device and related computer components, this claim encompasses obtaining sea-journey operational model using historical route data to determine an optimized shipping route based on carbon emission parameters, dynamically updating the route during the journey using updated temporal data, and outputting ship control parameters to a navigation system, which are all actions that could otherwise be performed manually within a conventional sea journey planning or navigation management system. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of, “electronic device” and “a route optimization model” does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of “electronic device” and “a route optimization model”, which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The electronic device and the route optimization model act as tools to carry out the abstract idea because they are used solely to implement or apply the abstract idea, without altering or improving how the device operates or how the model functions. The additional elements do not change the nature of the idea or add any technological contribution, they are just the means by which the abstract idea is executed. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. The electronic device and route optimization model act as tools to carry out the abstract idea because they are used to solely to implement or apply the idea, without altering or improving how the additional elements operate or function. These elements do not change the nature of the idea or add any technological contribution that sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, this does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7, 9-10, and 14-19, recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include confidence score associated with the carbon emission parameter, determining an operational parameter for the route parameter, determining whether the operational parameter satisfies a first criterion, when it is determined that the operational parameter does not satisfy the first criterion, including the route parameter into a fine-tuning data set, wherein the first criterion is based on one or more operational constraints associated with the operational input data, wherein the booking data comprises data indicative of one or more of: container equipment size, equipment type, commodity shipped, cost details, delivery time, source port, destination port, and bunker fuel consumption, wherein the temporal data comprises one or more of: a maritime parameter, an air travel parameter, a weather parameter, and geolocation data, wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining updated temporal data along the shipping route and on the updated temporal data, and pre-processing comprises filtering the historical data based on proximity, and/or selecting one or more candidate routes based on delivery time and/or route leg information. The dependent claims 3-7, 9-10, and 14-19, do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 26 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea of claim 1 to include perform the method according to claim 1. In addition, it recites a new additional element of “an electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface,” which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a technological environment. Even in combination, for Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computer to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 28 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea of claim 1 to include wherein the ship control parameters comprise at least one of: ship velocity or ship heading angle. The dependent claim 28 does not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 8 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that independent claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is referred to the 101 rejections above as to why the claims still recite a judicial exception. Examiner notes that Claim 1 still appears to recite abstract concepts of a route optimization and carbon emission management, which are considered judicial exceptions under 35 USC 101, as they involve models and data processing without significantly transforming the underlying abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that at claim 1 does not recite any recite any contractual terms, sales activities, or business marketing, and thus, cannot be considered as being directed to "commercial or legal interactions, but instead, the claims recite a dynamic route optimization and control of a ship according to a dynamically determined route. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although framed as dynamic ship route control, route optimization to reduce carbon emissions involves managing logistics and operational decisions to comply with environmental regulations, which are centered on fulfilling legal and commercial obligations. Applicant further argues that even if the independent claim were considered to recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a technical improvement to ship navigation and control. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 1 merely applies the alleged abstract idea using generic computing and navigation components to calculate and update a route based on emission data, without reciting a specific improvement to the functioning of the ship or navigation system itself, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the amended claim contemplates physical machine integration and mechanical control of a ship in an optimal and efficient manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim only recites outputting control parameters for ship navigation based on data analysis, which constitutes generic machine implementation of an abstract optimization process rather than a specific mechanical integration or improvement in the physical operation of the ship. Applicant further argues that this link between evaluation of environmental data and computation of ship control parameters ensures "safety (such as best route to sail in troubled weather)" and achieves a "safe arrival at port"-thus constituting a clear technical improvement in the field of maritime navigation and engineering. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed linkage between environmental data evaluation and ship control parameter computation does not itself provide a technical improvement to maritime navigation beyond known optimization of operational parameters, but rather describes abstract data processing tied to conventional navigation systems without demonstrating enhancement of safety. Applicant further argues that they disagree with the action’s assertion that carbon emissions are a "regulatory matter" centered on "legal and commercial obligations”, and rather submit that carbon emissions are a "physical, real-world output" that depend on a ship's "average weight" and "distance." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that route optimization to reduce carbon emissions involves managing logistics and operational decisions to comply with environmental regulations, which are centered on fulfilling legal and commercial obligations and the mere dependence on real-worlds factors like weight and distance does not transform this abstract parameter into a patentable technical improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technological solution to a defined problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim even if viewed under Step 2A, Prong two, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The steps recited simply use a computer to process data and output a result without any improvement to computer technology or a specific technical solution, and therefore the claim remains directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Applicant further argues that the elements of Claim 1, when considered as an ordered combination, amount to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that when viewed as an ordered combination, the elements of amended claim 1 still amount to no more than applying a known idea, route optimization, using generic computer functions. While the claim references factors like carbon emissions, weather, and sea conditions, it does not recite any new or improved way of processing this data or show how the computer’s functionality is enhanced beyond routine use, and therefore does not amount to “significantly more” under Step 2B. Applicant further argues that the submits that independent claim 1 is directed to patentable subject matter and therefore, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection with respect to claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-19, 26, and 28 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626