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 Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed6/18/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10-15, 21-25 were amended. Claims 16-20 and 26-30 were cancelled. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to Claim Objection: Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/18/2025, with respect to claims 1-15 and 21-25 have been fully considered and Claim Objection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)/(a)/(b): Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/18/2025, with respect to claims 1-15 and 21-25 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)/(a)/(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/18/2025, with respect to claims 1-15 and 21-25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “However, the claims are not directed towards any of the examples of "certain methods of organizing human activity." In particular, the claimed invention has nothing to do with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such as social interactions for example. The claimed invention is directed towards determining a preferred shipment route of a cargo transportation based on multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators. The preferred shipment route is determined to save shipment time or emissions based on multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators. This is not managing personal behavior or managing interactions between people, rather this is directed towards optimizing a shipment route to avoid delays in the shipment. This is also not verifying delivery of a package to the correct address, as asserted by the Office Action. In particular, the independent claims do not recite "verifying delivery of a package to the correct address" or the like, nor is this the result of the independent claims. Rather, the independent claims determine a preferred shipment route which is the fastest or shortest shipment route. Therefore, the independent claims do not recite a method of organizing human behavior. As such, the independent claims do not fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping defined in the MPEP. Hence, the independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea… Applicant submits that the claimed invention is an improvement to cargo transportation logistics technology. There is a technical problem in accurately determining alternative shipment routes in real-time. For example, a location in which a shipment can pass through during shipping may be a port, which may receive many shipments on a particular day, and cause delays to the one or more shipments as they must wait for a free dock. This is a technical problem in logistics technology, such as cargo tracking systems, as cargo transportation can often be delayed due to inefficiencies in tracking and control provided by such systems. In particular, cargo transportation can often be delayed due to the inefficiency to change or modify a shipment route "on the fly" in response to complications that can cause delays in the current shipment route. In other words, current systems are not adaptable to sudden changes in the shipment route… The above features help in addressing the described technical problem. In particular, estimating a location health value using location characteristics and future schedules is useful in determining whether delays are likely. Moreover, as at least one of the multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators corresponds to a current location of the one or more shipments, the probability of a delay occurring at a location which the one or more shipments passes through can be accurately determined as the delay may only be temporary. For example, a location in which a shipment can pass through during shipping may be a port, which may receive many shipments on a particular day. The future schedules may be indicative of the receiving schedule of that port and hence, the future schedules may provide an indication that the port will cause shipment delays on a particular day. However, based on the current location, the one or more shipments may be due to arrive at the port on the day after. Hence, the claimed invention may determine that the preferred route is the current trajectory as there is no clash. As such, the claimed invention provides a data driven approach to optimize the shipment route of cargo transportation. These features also provide accurate alternative shipment routes compared to simply determining alternative routes based on Automatic Identification System (AIS) data, as is done by existing cargo tracking systems. Hence, these features provide an improvement to logistics technology…Therefore, the claimed invention is not the implementation of an abstract idea on a computer. The claimed invention provides a shipment route that has been adapted to account for real world factors, where the preferred shipment route can reduce shipment time or emissions of the cargo transportation. Any reduction of the shipment time or emissions is a huge improvement in the logistics industry, so this is clearly an improvement to logistics technology. Hence, the claimed invention is not an abstract idea. Further, it is clear that the claimed invention provides a practical application and is significantly more than simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer, based on the technical advantages provided by the claimed invention”, (see remarks , pg. 10-13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for monitoring and controlling cargo transportation, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as an individual analyzing a schedule or database can determine optimal routes with reasonable location health value and based on their analysis communicates a route a second entity. The computing elements such as “storage device, processing device, display device of claim 1; computer-readable medium, program code, display device of claim 11; computer-implemented, display device of claim 21” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 6/18/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Rhyu.
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 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for monitoring and controlling cargo transportation.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “system for monitoring and automatically controlling cargo transportation, the system comprising: receive a shipment tracking inquiry, wherein the shipment tracking inquiry comprises at least an origination location and a destination location; generate at least one shipment route based on the shipment tracking inquiry; estimate a location health value using location characteristics and future schedules, the location health value representing a current location health of a location in which a shipment can pass through during shipping; receive one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators along at least one of the at least one shipment route, wherein the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators indicate a status of one or more shipments on at least one of the at least one shipment route, wherein at least one of the multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators corresponds to a current location of the one or more shipments and at least one of the multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators corresponds to the location health value; based on the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators, determine a preferred shipment route of the at least one shipment route, wherein the preferred shipment route is at least one of a fastest route of the at least one shipment route or a shortest route of the at least one shipment route; and cause to display a rendering of a representation of the preferred shipment route” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (storage device, processing device, display device of claim 1; computer-readable medium, program code, display device of claim 11; computer-implemented, display device of claim 21) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-15 and 21-25 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (storage device, processing device, display device of claim 1; computer-readable medium, program code, display device of claim 11; computer-implemented, display device of claim 21). The storage device, processing device, display device of claim 1; computer-readable medium, program code, display device of claim 11; computer-implemented, display device of claim 21, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 22-25 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the processing device in claims 5-9; program code in claim 15; GPS, AIS data, CLM data and ELD data of claim 10, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughran et al (US Patent No. 10956855 - hereinafter Cough) in view of Rhyu et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170140326 - hereinafter Rhyu).
Re. claim 1, Cough teaches:
A system for monitoring and automatically controlling cargo transportation, the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device; and [Cough; Col. 6 line 45-47].
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: [Cough; Col. 2 line 20-25].
receive a shipment tracking inquiry, wherein the shipment tracking inquiry comprises at least an origination location and a destination location; [Cough; Col. 5 lines 33-38 shows platform system equipped with a GUI that allows a user and a decision maker to make requests for route optimization and track progress].
generate at least one shipment route based on the shipment tracking inquiry; [Cough; Col. 5 lines 33-38].
receive one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators along at least one of the at least one shipment route, wherein the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators indicate a status of one or more shipments on at least one of the at least one shipment route; [Cough; Col. 29 lines 61-66 shows "The sensors can include one or more different types, wherein m is the number of different types. For example, the sensor network can include vehicle, weather, facility, or other information sensors (Sj<i>) 1400, for example, sensors 1403, 1404, 1405, and 1406. Each sensor is capable of providing situational data to one or more aggregators, e.g., aggregator 1401, or directly to the API 412 of the platform 413. In some implementations, the sensors can provide real-time streaming situational data" col. 28 lines 2 - 10; "an example completion tool and resource(s) (CTR) aggregator 2100 and the various example of the sensor nodes that may feed data to the aggregator. These sensors may include, for example, computer 2101, telematics 2102, accelerometer 2103, battery level 2104, electronic logging device (ELD) 2105, weight scale 2106"].
based on the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators, determine a preferred shipment route of the at least one shipment route, wherein the preferred shipment route is at least one of a fastest route of the at least one shipment route or a shortest route of the at least one shipment route; and [Cough; col. 28 lines 13 – 17 shows "The platform 413 can then handle the computational processing, using various data analysis methods, for example, machine learning and _ artificial intelligence algorithms, to determine and rank routes using the data generated by the sensors 1400”].
cause a display device to display a rendering of a representation of the preferred shipment route. [Cough; Col. 5 lines 33-38 and Col. 12 line 57 – Col. 13 line 31 shows routes displayed using interface].
Cough doesn’t teach, Rhyu teaches:
estimate a location health value using location characteristics and future schedules, the location health value representing a current location health of a location in which a shipment can pass through during shipping; [Rhyu; ¶90 shows calculations for values at current location. Fig. 5 and ¶79 presents various options and values for expected wait time along with level of satisfaction for plurality of different routes].
wherein at least one of the multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators corresponds to a current location of the one or more shipments and at least one of the multiple real-time cargo transportation indicators corresponds to the location health value; [Rhyu; ¶90 shows calculations for values at current location. Fig. 5 and ¶79 presents various options and values for expected wait time along with level of satisfaction for plurality of different routes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Rhyu in the system of Cough, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein a first shipment route of the at least one shipment route is at least one of a first shipment type and a second shipment route of the at least one shipment route is at least one of a second shipment type, wherein the first shipment type is different from the second shipment type. [Cough; Col. 10 line 49-58 shows "an agent may itself be a vehicle, e.g., a flying drone or a system controlling a self-driving truck. Examples of agents include people, animals, self-driving automobiles, and aerial devices. Example of vehicles for use by agents include boats, trains, bicycles, and electric vehicles”].
Re. claim 3, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 2.
Cough teaches:
wherein the first shipment type and the second shipment type are each at least one of a rail transport, a road transport, an air transport, or a water transport. [Cough; Col. 10 line 49-58 shows "an agent may itself be a vehicle, e.g., a flying drone or a system controlling a self-driving truck. Examples of agents include people, animals, self-driving automobiles, and aerial devices. Example of vehicles for use by agents include boats, trains, bicycles, and electric vehicles”].
Re. claim 4, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators includes at least one of a route information for another shipment along the at least one shipment route. [Cough; Col. 18 line 47 – line 67].
Re. claim 5, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to determine a shipment route reliability rating for the at least one shipment route based on at least one historical shipment indicator relating to the at least one shipment route or carrier of the at least one shipment route. [Cough; Col. 28 lines 13 – 17 shows "The platform 413 can then handle the computational processing, using various data analysis methods, for example, machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms, to determine and rank routes using the data generated by the sensors 1400”].
Re. claim 6, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to change the preferred shipment route from a first shipment route of the at least one shipment route to a second shipment route of the at least one shipment route based on one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators. [Cough; col. 11 lines 17 - 18 shows "The system can also periodically or continually update routes in real-time as each day progresses"].
Re. claim 7, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to: determine at least one location-based performance indicator for one or more locations, wherein each location-based performance indicator indicates a time taken for one or more shipments travelling through a given location of the one or more locations; and based on at least one of the at least one location-based performanceindicator, update the preferred shipment route. [Cough; col. 31 lines 48 – 52 shows "The geo-location sensor 1515 can monitor the location of each agent, CTR device, or both. The monitoring of the relevant forces that can influence tasks and can be used for maximizing efficiency 2301 and satisfying constraints 2303 using the most recent location information.”].
Re. claim 8, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 7.
Cough teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to cause a rendering of a display of the at least one location-based performance indicator for at least one of the one or more locations. [Cough; col. 31 lines 48 – 52].
Re. claim 9, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to: cause a rendering of a display comprising information relating to at least one of the at least one shipment route; and receive a route selection input that selects one of the at least one shipment route in the rendering, wherein the preferred shipment route is updated based on the route selection input. [Cough; col. 31 lines 48 – 52].
Re. claim 10, Cough in view of Rhyu teaches system of claim 1.
Cough teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more real-time cargo transportation indicators is based on global position system (GPS) data, automatic identification system (AIS) data, car location message (CLM) data, or electronic logging device (ELD) data. [Cough; Col. 42 line 17 shows GPS receiver].
Re. claim 11,
Computer program product of claim 11 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 12,
Computer program product of claim 12 substantially mirrors the system of claim 2.
Re. claim 13,
Computer program product of claim 13 substantially mirrors the system of claim 3.
Re. claim 14,
Computer program product of claim 14 substantially mirrors the system of claim 4.
Re. claim 15,
Computer program product of claim 15 substantially mirrors the system of claim 5.
Re. claim 21,
Computer-implemented method of claim 21 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 12,
Computer-implemented method of claim 22 substantially mirrors the system of claim 2.
Re. claim 13,
Computer-implemented method of claim 23 substantially mirrors the system of claim 3.
Re. claim 14,
Computer-implemented method of claim 24 substantially mirrors the system of claim 4.
Re. claim 15,
Computer-implemented method of claim 25 substantially mirrors the system of claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628