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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claim 4, 11 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “A human mind or pen and paper process cannot perform the claimed steps of transporting non-self-propelled vehicle assets to geographic positions and transferring electrical energy between battery packs during transport or standstill.” (pgs. 9-10)
Examiner notes that the claimed limitations encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data. For instance claim 1 is directed to receiving mobile electric asset information, receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments, determining electric energy requirement, etc., which involves collecting and analyzing data that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen/paper. Further the limitations related to transmitting instructions to the self-propelled vehicle asset or driver is merely sending/receiving data without any control step that physically controls and directs a vehicle to a location. In the alternative, the limitation related to transferring electricity between the self-propelled vehicle asset to a non-propelled asset is considered the application step ‘apply it’ of the analysis. Therefore, the claims recite the abstract concept of Mental Processes.
Applicant argues, “…the additional limitations integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to a specific technological solution for managing energy distribution and vehicle operation in an electric freight system, and not to merely organizing human activity or performing mental processes.” (pg. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets including self-propelled and non-self-propelled assets a device comprising a control unit. The device comprising the control unit is generic computer component recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0114, generically recited control unit includes a processor).
For instance, the steps of receiving mobile electric asset information including geographic position and battery status and receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments is data gathering activity. The steps of determining an electric energy requirement and determining a set of mobile electric assets based on the requirement, battery status, route assignments and charging assignments involve analyzing data which is data gathering activity. The step of transmitting instructions to the self-propelled asset or a driver to transport a non-propelled vehicle is sending/receiving data. There is no control or physical step that controls and directs a vehicle to a location. The potential step of transferring electricity between the self-propelled vehicle asset and the at least one non-self-propelled vehicle are the application step (‘apply it’) of the analysis.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a device). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a device). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner notes there is no support in the Specification or the claims for an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 11-13, filed 06/14/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving mobile electric asset information including a geographic position and a battery status of the plurality of mobile electric assets each having at least one mobile electric asset battery pack, wherein the plurality of mobile electric assets includes both self-propelled vehicle assets and non-self-propelled vehicle assets, and wherein electricity is transferred directly between the self-propelled vehicle assets and the non-self-propelled vehicle assets;
receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume;
determining an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment;
determining, based on the electric energy requirement and the battery status of the plurality of mobile electric assets, a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments that meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment; wherein each route assignment is selected such that a geographic road route assigned to a self-propelled vehicle asset intersects with a geographic position of at least one non-self-propelled vehicle asset for enabling transfer of electricity between the self-propelled vehicle asset and the at least one non-self-propelled vehicle asset; and
transmitting instructions to the self-propelled vehicle asset or a driver thereof to transport the at least one non-self-propelled vehicle asset to another geographic position, and/or transfer electricity between the self-propelled vehicle asset and the at least one non-self-propelled vehicle asset during transport or during standstill, such that the determined set of mobile electric assets
wherein at least one of the non-self-propelled vehicle assets is a trailer, and/or wherein the determined set of mobile electric assets includes non-vehicle assets including a container, a pallet-sized unit, a sub-pallet-sized unit or an array of mobile electric asset battery packs.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Human Activity related to managing interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a control unit with a processor). For example, receiving freight transport assignments and determining a set of mobile electric assets route and charging assignments and transmitting instructions to the self-propelled vehicle asset or driver involve managing interactions or following instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claim 13 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to information on capacity or state of health of mobile asset; Claim 3 is directed to sending freight transport assignments (sending/receiving data); Claim 5 is directed to a self-propelled vehicle asset; Claim 6 is directed to real-time information ; Claim 7 is directed to non-self-propelled vehicle asset as a trailer; Claim 8 is directed to electric energy requirements (analyzing data); Claim 9 is directed to charging assignments include stationary charging points or between self-propelled vehicles; Claim 10 is directed to optimizing battery cycling of mobile electric battery packs (analyzing data); Claim 11 is directed to transmitting instructions to a vehicle or driver for a transport (sending/receiving data); Claim 12 is directed to electricity price information or energy source (sending/receiving; analyzing data) and Claim 15 is directed to a database of road route information. Claims 14, 16, 18-20 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2, 6,9, 10 and 12 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets including self-propelled and non-self-propelled assets. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets, a system comprising a control unit. The system comprising the control unit is generic computer component recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0114, generically recited control unit includes a processor).
For instance, the steps of receiving mobile electric asset information including geographic position and battery status and receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments is data gathering activity. The steps of determining an electric energy requirement and determining a set of mobile electric assets based on the requirement, battery status, route assignments and charging assignments involve analyzing data which is data gathering activity. The step of transmitting instructions to the self-propelled asset or a driver to transport a non-propelled vehicle is sending/receiving data. There is no control or physical step that controls and directs a vehicle to a location. The potential step of transferring electricity between the self-propelled vehicle asset and the at least one non-self-propelled vehicle are the application step (‘apply it’) of the analysis.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of mobile electric assets and a processor are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Samaras (US 11300978) discloses transporting an unmanned vehicle to a destination location. The method includes determining a ground vehicle from a plurality of ground vehicles based on a location of the ground vehicle, the destination location, and a location of the unmanned vehicle, controlling the unmanned vehicle to the location of the ground vehicle, controlling at least one attachment mechanism to attach the unmanned vehicle to the ground vehicle, in response to the ground vehicle traveling to a second location, controlling the at least one attachment mechanism to detach the unmanned vehicle from the ground vehicle, and controlling the unmanned vehicle to the destination location.
Godfrey et al. (US 2017/0345314) discloses The central computing device is configured to receive the location of the first load from the first tracking device; identify a stop event for the first load based on the location of the first load; receive the location of the second load from the second tracking device; identify a stop event for the second load based on the location of the second load; determine that the stop event for the first load and the stop event for the second load are within a predetermined proximity; and determine that the transportation relay has occurred
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights