DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/29/24, wherein:
Claims 1-16 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Software 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. In claim 15, the computer program product contains software (data) structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media and therefore are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing function change in a computer. Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, any software detached from an activating medium remains uncombinable. It cannot be inserted into a CD-ROM drive or downloaded from the Internet; it cannot be installed or executed on a computer. Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. Microsoft v AT&T, 550 US 437, (2007).
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 1-16 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 transport factors which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports; and
estimating an environmental impact associated with a subsequent item of goods for an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts and the obtained first set of variable environmental transport factors.
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 step 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 transport factors which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports; and
estimating an environmental impact associated with a subsequent item of goods for an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts and the obtained first set of variable environmental transport factors.
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 limitation) 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 15 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, 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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegner et al. (US 20080040182).
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 transport factors which impacted the total energy consumption by the vehicle whilst carrying out each of the corresponding transports {Wegner [0091][0352] 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
estimating an environmental impact associated with a subsequent item of goods for an upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods based on the determined environmental impacts and the obtained first set of variable environmental transport factors {Wegner [0201][0202][0256][0273]; use the environmental data for planning the transport process and/or for calculating the environmental impact of a certain transport [0201] and According to the present invention, to model a plan for a transport, a plan network model is constructed upon the transport network model [0273]}.
Referring to claim 2:
Wegner discloses obtaining a second set of variable environmental transport factors which is estimated to impact the total energy consumption by a vehicle whilst carrying out the upcoming transport of said subsequent item of goods; and 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 {Wegner [0273][0361]-[0372]; Emissions related to the following activities are implemented in more complex implementations of the invention: 1. Construction, maintenance, service and scrapping/dismantling of: vehicles and vessels power plants Traffic infrastructure (roads, bridges, petrol stations etc.) [0361]-[0365]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Wegner 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 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 transport factors, and the obtained second set of variable environmental transport factors, 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 {Wegner [0096][0273][0360]-[0372]; Emissions related to the following activities are implemented in more complex implementations of the invention: 1. Construction, maintenance, service and scrapping/dismantling of: vehicles and vessels power plants Traffic infrastructure (roads, bridges, petrol stations etc.) [0361]-[0365] and where the alternative environmental impacts includes only the appropriate activities from [0361]-[0372], depending on what type of transport is used}.
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 {Wegner [0096][0100][0273][0360]-[0372] and Fig. 1; the invention includes generating and/or presenting reports on generated and/or expected emissions [0096]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Wegner discloses wherein the first and second set of variable environmental transport factors 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 {Wegner [0091][0198][0360]-[0372]; It is also possible 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. In addition, the emissions could be presented in means of geographical impact [0091] and traffic infrastructure (illumination, cleaning, snow clearing, surveillance etc.) [0368]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Wegner 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 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following addition:
Wegner discloses a 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]}.
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 6 & 14 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 6:
Wegner 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 transport factors, and the obtained second set of variable environmental transport factors {Wegner [0096][0273][0360]-[0372]; Emissions related to the following activities are implemented in more complex implementations of the invention: 1. Construction, maintenance, service and scrapping/dismantling of: vehicles and vessels power plants Traffic infrastructure (roads, bridges, petrol stations etc.) [0361]-[0365] where Wegner does not include the portion of the claim in brackets, i.e., that a machine learning model is trained to perform the estimating}.
Wegner discloses a system for optimizing the transport of physical objects according to environmental data (abstract and [0002]). Wegner does not disclose
a machine learning model is trained to estimate the environmental impact.
However, Sanchez discloses a similar system for determining a value indicative of the carbon emissions associated with shipping a package (abstract). Sanchez discloses wherein a machine learning model is trained to estimate the environmental impact {Sanchez [0123]; 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]}
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 a trained machine learning model 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 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Conclusion
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 on 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626