DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 4/10/26, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Signal per se
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 includes “a computer readable medium” which includes a transitory signal. A transitory, propagating signal is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106 IV B for further explanation. Examiner suggests that applicant amend the claims to indicate that the computer readable storage medium is non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Alice
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 9 recites a system and therefore, also falls into a statutory category. Despite the analysis that claim 15 was not found to fall into a statutory category, claim 15 is reanalyzed under the full 2-step process for purposes of compact prosecution.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mental processes
determining an environmental impact associated with each of a number of items of goods for a corresponding transport of said item of goods, wherein each environmental impact is based on a part of a total energy consumption of a vehicle for the corresponding transport that has been assigned to said item of goods, and wherein the total energy consumption for each of the corresponding transports are measured by the vehicle whilst carrying out the corresponding transports,
obtaining a first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports; and
obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods;
estimating an environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods; and
choosing transportation for the subsequent item of good based in part on the estimated environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods.
These limitations constitute estimating an environmental impact of transporting items of goods (Specification ¶2), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claim 1 does not include any generic computer components. However, the system of claim 9 includes processing circuitry and a memory. Other than reciting that the system is comprised of processing circuitry and a memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
determining an environmental impact associated with each of a number of items of goods for a corresponding transport of said item of goods, wherein each environmental impact is based on a part of a total energy consumption of a vehicle for the corresponding transport that has been assigned to said item of goods, and wherein the total energy consumption for each of the corresponding transports are measured by the vehicle whilst carrying out the corresponding transports,
obtaining a first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports; and
obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods;
estimating an environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods; and
choosing transportation for the subsequent item of good based in part on the estimated environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods.
These limitations constitute estimating an environmental impact of transporting items of goods (Specification ¶2), for which there is an increasing demand on companies to report (Specification ¶4), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 recites the additional elements of processing circuitry and a memory, which are considered computer components (claim 1 does not recite any additional elements). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the obtaining limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do 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 element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the obtaining limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 17-20 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 9 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 9; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 6, 14, 15, and 16 further recite the additional elements of a machine learning model and a computer-readable (storage) medium, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “obtaining a first set of variable environmental circumstances” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation. The claims previously referred to, and the Specification still refers to “variable environmental transport factors” and changing the claim language indicates that the term, “variable environmental circumstances” has a different meaning from the “variable environmental transport factors” term. Claim 9 also contains a similar limitation.
Claim 1: “obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation. The claims previously referred to, and the Specification still refers to “variable environmental transport factors” and changing the claim language indicates that the term, “variable environmental circumstances” has a different meaning from the “variable environmental transport factors” term. Claim 9 also contains a similar limitation.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 also include references to the term variable environmental circumstances and are rejected for similar reasons. The claims not specifically enumerated are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the first occurrence of the “subsequent item of goods” limitation in the claim. Claim 9 includes a similar limitation and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods" which is confusing. It is unclear whether there are multiple “subsequent item of goods” or if the second “subsequent item of goods” should state “said subsequent item of goods” rather than “a subsequent item of goods.” For purposes of further examination, it is assumed that “a subsequent item of goods” should be “said subsequent item of goods.” Claim 9 includes a similar limitation and is rejected on a similar basis.
The remaining claims are rejected as dependent on claim 1 or claim 9.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner et al. (US 20080040182), in view of Sanchez et al. (US 20220067751).
Referring to claim 1:
Wegner discloses a computer-implemented method for estimating an environmental impact of transporting items of goods {Wegner [0169][0260]; perform a gathering of environmental data, especially of environmental performance data and--resulting--environmental impact data for different carriers [0169] and the present invention provides a computer central control computer for modeling a transport capability on a computer [0260]}, wherein the method comprises:
determining an environmental impact associated with each of a number of items of goods for a corresponding transport of said item of goods, wherein each environmental impact is based on a part of a total energy consumption of a vehicle for the corresponding transport that has been assigned to said item of goods, and wherein the total energy consumption for each of the corresponding transports are measured by the vehicle whilst carrying out the corresponding transports {Wegner [0086][0087] [0089][0091][0270][0347][0348]; analysis of the environmental performance data [0086] and determine over all environmental performance data, for example by regarding the typical emissions of a transportation vehicle for each transported weight unit [0087] and it is even possible to determine the specific environmental performance data for each type of vehicle used. It is furthermore possible to install fuel-measuring devices and/or continuously register the loading factor. It is also possible keeping track of positioning using GPS [0091] and total emissions for a specific piece of cargo [0348]},
obtaining a first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports {Wegner [0091][0352][0361]-[0372] and Table 1; determine the specific environmental performance data for each type of vehicle used. It is furthermore possible to install fuel-measuring devices . . . keeping track of positioning using GPS. The information is advantageously continuously communicated to a central database through GSM or GPRS. In this way, each vehicle and the onboard transport could be monitored using real time values [0091] and Emissions related to extraordinary events (i.e. due to accidents, conflicts, natural disasters or technical malfunctions) [0372]}.
Wegner discloses a system for optimizing the transport of physical objects according to environmental data (abstract and [0002]). Wegner does not disclose obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods; estimating an environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods; and choosing transportation for the subsequent item of good based in part on the estimated environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods.
However, Sanchez discloses a similar system for determining a value indicative of the carbon emissions associated with shipping a package (abstract). Sanchez discloses obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods, which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of a subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0074][0123][0124]; These models may be generated using shipping records 311 and then used to predict a shipping route used by a carrier to ship a package and the method of transportation used to ship the package during each segment of the shipping route . . . The one or more models may be updated over time as they are used and as more information is collected, e.g. based on actual shipping events and actual transportation modes used [0074] where the prediction of the shipping route and method of transportation are the second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport};
estimating an environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0074][0123][0124]; a merchant may use their merchant device 320 to query the carbon offset predictor 302 to obtain a carbon emission indication associated with shipping one or more of their products to one or more particular customers [0124]}; and
choosing transportation for the subsequent item of good based in part on the estimated environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0121]-[0124][0140]; The customer is able to select a shipping route that transports the package using both air and ground shipping or a route that uses ground shipping only [0140]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Wegner to incorporate obtaining a second set of variable environmental circumstances, estimating an environmental impact, and choosing transportation as taught by Sanchez because this would provide a manner for generating a carbon emission indication (Sanchez [0123]), thus aiding the user by providing desired information.
Referring to claim 2:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses estimating the environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods further based on the obtained second set of variable environmental transport factors {Sanchez [0074] [0123][0124]; These models may be generated using shipping records 311 and then used to predict a shipping route used by a carrier to ship a package and the method of transportation used to ship the package during each segment of the shipping route . . . The one or more models may be updated over time as they are used and as more information is collected, e.g. based on actual shipping events and actual transportation modes used [0074] and a merchant may use their merchant device 320 to query the carbon offset predictor 302 to obtain a carbon emission indication associated with shipping one or more of their products to one or more particular customers [0124]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses providing the estimated environmental impact associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods to a user of a transportation ordering system {Wegner [0096][0180][0181] and Fig. 1; the invention includes generating and/or presenting reports on generated and/or expected emissions [0096]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses estimating one or more alternative environmental impacts associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, whereby said alternative environmental impacts is conditional on one or more transport restrictions or transport options for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0121]-[0124][0140]; For example, the option of ground shipping only in FIG. 16 may be based on a first shipping route predicted using a model for a first carrier, and the option of air and ground shipping may be based on a second shipping route predicted using a model for a second carrier [0140]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Wegner discloses providing the estimated one or more alternative environmental impacts associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods to a user of a transportation ordering system {Sanchez [0121]-[0124][0140]; As an example, the checkout page 1400 of FIG. 16 provides an indication 1500 that allows the customer to select a preferred method of shipping. The customer is able to select a shipping route that transports the package using both air and ground shipping or a route that uses ground shipping only. Each route is associated with a respective carbon emission indication ($3.45 vs. $1.20) [0140]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein a machine learning model is trained to estimate the environmental impact and/or the one or more alternative environmental impacts associated with the subsequent item of goods for the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts, the obtained first set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, and the obtained second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports {Sanchez [0121]-[0124][0140]; a machine learning algorithm may be trained on the shipping records of products already shipped and delivered, in order to learn the relationships and patterns between shipping events. A mode of transportation, distance, carrier, and/or route may be associated with each transit event during the training. Post-training, input parameters may be input into the trained machine learning algorithm (e.g. merchant, product, origin address, delivery address, etc.) to generate an output that predicts the shipping route and mode(s) of transportation. This prediction may then be used to generate the carbon emission indication [0123]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein the first and second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports comprise one or more of: one or more geography or topography factors relating to the route travelled by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports, an amount of traffic on the route travelled by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports, one or more factors relating to the current weather on the route travelled by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports, and one or more factors related to the timing or date whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports {Sanchez [0074][0076][0080][0083][0123][0124]; These models may be generated using shipping records 311 and then used to predict a shipping route used by a carrier to ship a package and the method of transportation used to ship the package during each segment of the shipping route . . . The one or more models may be updated over time as they are used and as more information is collected, e.g. based on actual shipping events and actual transportation modes used [0074]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein the environmental impact is represented by a carbon-dioxide, CO2, or carbon-dioxide equivalent, CO2e, indicator {Wegner [0352] and Table 1; Environmental performance data included in the ACCEPT system . . . Carbon Dioxide [Table 1]}.
Referring to claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Wegner discloses an environmental impact monitoring system for estimating an environmental impact of transporting items of goods, wherein the environmental impact monitoring system comprising a processing circuitry and a memory {Wegner [0169][0260]; perform a gathering of environmental data, especially of environmental performance data and--resulting--environmental impact data for different carriers [0169] and the present invention provides a computer central control computer for modeling a transport capability on a computer [0260]}.
Referring to claims 10-13:
Claims 10-13 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 2-5.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following addition:
Wegner discloses a computer program product stored on a computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer or on a processing circuitry of an environmental impact monitoring system {Wegner [0067][0814]; an aspect of the invention concerns a computer program product, characterised in that it contains one of the described computer programs [0814]}.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following addition:
Wegner discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed on a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 1 {Wegner [0067][0319]-[0325][0814]; an execution memory operable to store data and coupled to the data storage device [0322]}.
Referring to claim 17:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein the obtaining the second set of variable environmental circumstances associated with an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods is in response to receiving a transport assignment query requesting an estimate environmental impact for an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0074][0123][0124]; a merchant may use their merchant device 320 to query the carbon offset predictor 302 to obtain a carbon emission indication associated with shipping one or more of their products to one or more particular customers [0124]}.
Referring to claim 18:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein the first set of variable environmental circumstances and second set of variable environmental circumstances includes at least one of location, altitudes, expected traffic situations, possible routes, and expected weather conditions {Sanchez [0074][0076][0080][0083][0123][0124]; These models may be generated using shipping records 311 and then used to predict a shipping route used by a carrier to ship a package and the method of transportation used to ship the package during each segment of the shipping route . . . The one or more models may be updated over time as they are used and as more information is collected, e.g. based on actual shipping events and actual transportation modes used [0074]}.
Referring to claim 19:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses measuring, by the vehicle, the total energy consumption for each of the corresponding transports whilst carrying out the corresponding transports {Wegner [0086]-[0091][0772]; it is even possible to determine the specific environmental performance data for each type of vehicle used. It is furthermore possible to install fuel-measuring devices and/or continuously register the loading factor. It is also possible keeping track of positioning using GPS [0091] and Fuel consumption is gathered, in this order, from the vehicle, vehicle type or more generic parameters [0772]}
Referring to claim 20:
Wegner, as modified by Sanchez, discloses wherein the choosing the transportation for the subsequent item of good is based on the one or more alternative environmental impacts associated with the subsequent item of goods {Sanchez [0121]-[0124][0140]; a plurality of shipping routes is identified for shipping the product from the origin address to the delivery address, and a web resource includes a respective carbon emission indication for each one of the plurality of shipping routes . . . The customer is able to select a shipping route that transports the package using both air and ground shipping or a route that uses ground shipping only [0140]}.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
As to claim 15, Applicant has amended the claim to include a computer readable medium. This has introduced a new 101 rejection as the computer readable medium does not exclude transitory signals (see above).
Applicant argues that claim 1 “is not directed to an abstract idea and cannot practically be performed in the human mind,” arguing only that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such obtaining and estimating steps are not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind.” Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is broad and does not preclude a user from looking up (obtaining) information and then using mathematical equations to estimate an environmental impact. Claim 1 does not, itself, even include any sort of technology and Applicant does not offer any evidence for this argument. Examiner notes that the claims are also considered (alternatively) under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity which does not require that the process practically be performed in the human mind.
Applicant argues that “the steps of claim 1 provide an improvement for evaluating environmental impacts for future transports of goods” and therefore, “reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer and/or to another technology or technical field.” Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. At most, this provides an improvement in an abstract idea, not an improvement to technology.
Applicant then argues that claim 1 provides a non-conventional arrangement of steps for estimating environmental impact which is “not a routine or conventional use of a generic computer.” Remarks 11. Examiner notes that there is no use of a computer or any additional elements in claim 1. Further, no technology is improved. At most, any improvement is directed to the abstract idea, which does not satisfy the “significantly more” than the abstract idea requirement.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose “obtaining a first set of variable environmental circumstances…” as amended, stating that Wegner does not consider “obtaining environmental circumstances associated with each of the corresponding transports, but instead relates to the determined/measured emissions (e.g. environmental impact caused by the transportation vehicle while performing a transport.” Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wegner discloses this feature at [0091][0352][0361]-[0372] and Table 1 (see above). Wegner specifically discloses using fuel-measuring devices to track the use of fuel over various parts of the trip (see Wegner [0091]) as well as tracking emissions related to activities which are related to/impact the total energy consumption of the vehicle. Even though some of those activities may already be in the form of emissions, that does not negate their impact.
Regarding the “obtaining a second set…” and “estimating an environmental impact…” limitations, these are addressed above by Sanchez. Therefore, the arguments that Wegner does not disclose these limitations are moot.
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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 at 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights