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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 8th, 2026 has been entered.
Detailed Action:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant argues that there exists a technical problem to a technical solution. The total environmental impact from the products and their distributors/suppliers, etc.. can be found within the claims as amended. This is not in the opinion of the Examiner an improvement to another technology subject matter. Rather its an improvement to the subject matter of the invention itself. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any improvement to the functioning of the computing system itself. Thus, the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
Regarding 102/103:
The amendments have overcome the 102, however, the amendments are not persuasive to overcome the 103. The Examiner has cited to the amendments below, see below for further details and clarification.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1, 7, and 13 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, they recite the abstract idea of a mental process and organizing human activity.
PART I. 2A-PRONG ONE (IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT IDEAS)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Claims 1-13 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process and organizing human activity. Specifically, the claims are directed towards identifying the environmental impact objects have when transported.
A mental process includes, but is not limited to, concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This includes observing, evaluating, judging or forming an opinion. The limitations of the Applicant include the following as determined a mental process:
obtaining a total energy consumption measured for the transport assignment by the vehicle;
assigning a part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods;
associating an environmental impact to each transported item of goods based on the assigned part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods;
Organizing human activity involves managing person behavior, or relationships, or interactions between people. The limitations of the Applicant include the following as determined to be organizing human activity:
upon request, providing the environmental impact associated with each transported item of goods
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1 and 7 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process and organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
PART I. 2A-PRONG TWO (ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
The claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “…non-transitory computer readable medium…computer…environmental monitoring impact system….transportation ordering system….” which is pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, and as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f))
As a result, Examiner asserts that the dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
PART II. DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ELEMENT, OR COMBINATION, AMOUNTS TO “SIGNIFICANTLY MORE” THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA ITSELF
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of: “…non-transitory computer readable medium…computer…environmental monitoring impact system….transportation ordering system….” Examiner asserts that these do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f)
This is evidenced by the Applicant’s Specification on Fig. 1, implementing the software on a generic computer using generic implementing software in a routine and conventional manner. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The dependent claims, claims 2-6 and 8-12, and 14-15 do not independently overcome 101, and are therefore, rejected based on their dependency of claims 1, 7, and 13. The dependent claims alone or in combination recite similar elements which have already been found to be non-patent eligible. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as discussed above.
Thus, all the claims are rejected under 101.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0055232) (hereinafter, Bruno) in view of Meroux (US Pub. No. 20200242858) (hereinafter, Meroux).
As per claim 1.)
Bruno teaches,
A computer-implemented method for monitoring the environmental impact of each item of goods transported as part of a transport assignment for a vehicle, wherein the method comprises:
(Abstract, an exemplary method comprises generating information for handling and moving the at least one object with reference to environmental data and transporting the at least one object based on the information.)
Bruno does not explicitly teach, however, Meroux does teach,
transmitting, by a telecommunication or telematics device on the vehicle, information comprising an onboard measurement of an actual amount of fuel and/or energy that has been consumed by the vehicle during the transport assignment;
(claim 1 and paragraphs 3, 58 and 60)
Wherein the obtain comprises,
receiving, from the vehicle, the information comprising the on-board
measurement of the actual amount of fuel and/or energy that has been consumed by the
vehicle during the transport assignment: and
(paragraph 3, 58 and 60)
Bruno teaches generating information for handling and moving the at least one object with reference to environmental data and transporting the at least one object based on the information. Meroux teaches estimation of emissions resulting from use of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Meroux within the invention of Bruno with the motivation of identifying effective and efficient modes of transportation for objects, in an effort to curb emissions.
Bruno teaches,
determining the measured total energy consumption based on the information
from the vehicle;
(Paragraph 204, read in light of paragraph 202, noting on 204, “…total emissions for all transports for a customer during a selected time period…”)
obtaining a total energy consumption measured for the transport assignment by the vehicle;
(Paragraph 204, read in light of paragraph 202, noting on 204, “…total emissions for all transports for a customer during a selected time period…”)
assigning a part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods;
(Paragraph 203, read in light of paragraph 202, noting on 203, “…total emissions for a specific piece of cargo…”; Examiner interpreting this limitation in view of the Specification, Page 2, lines 21-23 wherein the Applicant discusses a “measured” part of the energy consumption; the prior art discussing how a piece of cargo is assigned a measured amount of energy consumption in view of the whole energy consumption)
associating an environmental impact to each transported item of goods based on the assigned part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods;
(See Fig. 11 & Table 1, “emissions report”; see also, paragraphs 187,188, 202-204)
and
upon request, providing the environmental impact associated with each transported item of goods
(See Fig. 11 & Table 1, “emissions report”; see also, paragraphs 187,188, 202-204)
wherein providing the environmental impact associated with each transported item of goods includes transmitting a report regarding the environmental impact associated with each transported item of goods according to the transport assignment to a transport ordering system.
(See, Fig. 11 & Table 1, “emissions report”; see also, paragraph 124 & 16, 165, and 182, noting “The data retrieving and/or report allow reports for each transport process…”; Further noting, paragraph 182 discloses how the parcel of paragraphs 16 and 165 are the smallest element the prior art envisions, which is a singular postal element)
As per claim 2,
Bruno does not explicitly teach; however, Meroux does teach,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining comprises receiving, from the vehicle, information comprising one or more of:
(Claim 1, noting “emissions monitoring portal, programmed to provide, for vehicles of a fleet, estimates of pollutant emissions for the fleet…”)
an on-board measurement of the actual amount of fuel and/or energy that has been consumed by the vehicle during the transport assignment, a fuel/energy type indication of the fuel/energy used by the vehicle, one or more time stamp events indicating starts/stops of the vehicle, and an on-board measurement of the actual distance that the vehicle has travelled during the transport assignment; and determining the measured total energy consumption based on the information from the vehicle
(Paragraph 3, noting “a transportation mobility system includes a data storage configured to maintain vehicle data indicating fuel consumption…”)
Bruno teaches generating information for handling and moving the at least one object with reference to environmental data and transporting the at least one object based on the information. Meroux teaches estimation of emissions resulting from use of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Meroux within the invention of Bruno with the motivation of identifying effective and efficient modes of transportation for objects, in an effort to curb emissions.
As per claim 3,
Bruno teaches,
The method according to claim 2, wherein the obtaining further comprise
receiving, from a transport assignment system and/or a transport system, information relating to the transport assignment, wherein the information comprises one or more of:
(Claim 19 discussing the transport system in detail, which is the prior art’s transport system for relating information about the transport assignment)
a transport order for the transport assignment, a vehicle type indication of the vehicle that has been assigned to carry out the transport assignment, a fuel/energy type indication of the fuel/energy used by the vehicle that has been assigned to carry out the transport assignment, start/stop times of the transport assignment, and route information indicating the geographical location of the start/end location of the transport assignment;
(Paragraphs 182, noting on 182, “fuelMixID” which are the fuel mix for the vehicle that ACCEPT (Automatic Customer Calculation for Environmental Performance Tool) uses when finding the emissions with the transport system data/information)
And,
determining the measured total energy consumption based on the information relating to the transport assignment from the transport assignment system and/or the transport system.
(Paragraphs 202-204 with paragraph 207)
As per claim 4,
Bruno teaches,
the method according to claim 1, wherein the assigning further comprises
receiving, from a transportation ordering system, information relating to the item of goods transported as part of the transport assignment, wherein the information comprises one or more of:
(Claim 19 discussing the transport system in detail, which is the prior art’s transport system for relating information about the transport assignment)
the weight and size of each item of goods, the total number of the item of goods, a type indication of each item of goods, a reference to the transport assignment system to which a transport order for the transport assignment has been sent, and route information indicating the geographical location of the transport start/end location of the items of goods;
(Paragraphs 17, 59, 205-206; noting on paragraph 59, “….Examples for the transportation relevant parameters are the weight and/or the size of the respective physical object…”)
and
assigning a part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods based on the receiving information from the transportation ordering system.
(Paragraph 203, read in light of paragraph 202, noting on 203, “…total emissions for a specific piece of cargo…”)
As per claim 5,
Bruno teaches,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the associating further comprises determining an environmental impact for each transported item of goods based on the assigned part of the measured total energy consumption to each transported item of goods and predetermined or standard correlation estimates between energy consumption and environmental impact
(See Fig. 11 & Table 1, “emissions report”; see also, paragraphs 187,188, 202-204, wherein the emissions report discloses all information regarding the environmental impact for each good based on the total energy consumption)
As per claim 6,
Bruno teaches,
the method according to claim 1, wherein the environmental impact is represented by a carbon-dioxide, CO2, and/or carbon-dioxide equivalent, CO2e, indicator
(See Fig. 11 & Table 1, “emissions report”; see also, paragraphs 187,188, 202-204)
As per claim 7 and 9-12,
Claims 7, 9-12 disclose similar limitations as claims 1, 3-6 above, but in a system form. Bruno envisions their invention within such a form, see, Bruno Abstract. Therefore, claims 7, 9-12 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1, 3-6 above.
As per claim 13,
Claims 13 disclose similar limitations to claims 1, but in a computer readable storage medium. Bruno discloses their invention in such form, see, Bruno at least claims 29. Therefore, claims 13 is rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-6 above.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 discloses similar limitations as claims 2 above, but in a system form. Bruno envisions their invention within such a form, see, Bruno Abstract. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under similar rationale as claims 2 above.
Conclusion:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623