DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2006 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to include a data lake, but the amendment does not include the limitation of claim 11 or the limitations of intervening claim 8, therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot. The claim has been rejected by the prior art of record.
101
Applicant argues that a data lake provides an improvement over prior art system. The Examiner disagrees. The data lake, as claimed is merely being used as a tool to acquire and store relevant data. There is no technological improvement to the data lake or any o the additional elements. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receiving at the shipping yard;
executing a check-in of the truck to the shipping yard;
automatically determining a workflow for the truck in response to the check-in and using an integrated data structure that that interrelates a warehouse data format used by a warehouse management system and a transportation data format used by a transportation management system; and
executing the workflow for the truck surfacing the workflow to shipping yard personnel, wherein executing the workflow comprises moving to a warehouse dock of the shipping yard indicated by the workflow.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “truck, gate, digital check in, application, interface device, automation platform, digital check-in kiosk, camera”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “truck, gate, digital check in, application, interface device, automation platform, digital check-in kiosk, camera”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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);
- (application, interface device, automation platform, digital check-in kiosk)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(truck, gate, data lake, digital check in)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two;
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter 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, 12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirynen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. WO2023/007849 A1 in view of Elenjickal et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0394419 A1 in further view of Unnikrishnan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0067626 A1
As per Claims 1, 12, 17 and 20, Quirynen teaches receiving a truck at a gate of the shipping yard (see para. 115);
executing a digital check-in of the truck to the shipping yard (see para. 115);
automatically determining a workflow for the truck in response to the check-in and using an integrated data structure that that interrelates a warehouse data format used by a warehouse management system and a transportation data format used by a transportation management system (see para. 115, the Examiner is interpreting unloading and loading as a warehouse date format); and
executing the workflow for the truck using an application surfacing the workflow to shipping yard personnel, wherein executing the workflow comprises moving the truck to a warehouse dock of the shipping yard indicated by the workflow (see para. 108, 114 and 117).
Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Elenjickal a digital check-in (see fig. 4A and para. 57). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Quirynen to include the teachings of Elenjickal to ensure a higher level of visibility and/or compliance throughout the network, as taught by Elenjickal.
Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Unnikrishnan determining, using one or more pieces of data acquired from a data lake; storing, in the data lake, data from a plurality of sources, the data interrelated using the integrated data structure (see para. 36). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Quirynen and Elenjickal to include the teachings of Unnikrishnan to perform retrieval/search of disparate information, as taught by the cited portion of Unnikrishnan.
As per Claim 12, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Unnikrishnan teach the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen further teaches wherein executing the workflow for the truck comprises controlling movement of automated equipment of the shipping yard in accordance with the workflow (see para. 108, 114 and 117).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirynen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. WO2023/007849 A1 in view of Elenjickal et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0394419 A1 in further view of Unnikrishnan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0067626 A1 and Brown U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2002/0123918
As per Claim 2, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Unnikrishnan
teach the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Brown
wherein executing the workflow for the truck further comprises staging items for shipment on the truck at a staging area for the warehouse dock indicated by the workflow (see para. 11). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Quirynen to include the teachings of Elenjickal to ensure proper loading of trucks, as suggested by the cited portion Quirynen.
Claim 3-5, 9, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirynen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. WO 2023/007849 A1 in view of Elenjickal et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0394419 A1 in further view of Unnikrishnan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0067626 A1 and Mains, JR 2019/0066033 A1
As per Claims 3 and 18, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Unnikrishnan teach the method of claim 1 as described above teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr
wherein: the warehouse data format structures warehouse data as identifying an order, one or more shipments in the order, and one or more items being delivered in each of the one or more shipments (see para. 44 and 71);
the transportation data format structures transportation data as identifying a trip, a load for the trip, an appointment associated with the trip, and carrier data associated with the appointment (see para. 72 and 77); and
the integrated data structure provides a link between the load of the transportation data format and the one or more shipments of the warehouse data format (see para. 60-61). The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Elenjickal.
As per Claim 4, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein the carrier data comprises a driver identity, a truck identity, and an asset identity (see para. 72), and wherein executing the digital check-in of the truck to the shipping yard comprises automatically validating at least one of the driver identity, the truck identity, or the asset identity (see para. 126-129). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 5, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein automatically determining a workflow for the truck comprises determining the appointment associated with the validated driver identity, truck identity, or asset identity (see para. 127-128). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 9, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Elenjickal
wherein automatically determining the workflow for the truck comprises determining an appointment associated with the truck as selected via an appointment scheduling interface (see para. 48).
Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr. wherein the method further comprises automatically adjusting appointment availability in the appointment scheduling interface based on dynamic monitoring of the shipping yard (see para. 54). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the methods of Quirynen and Elenjickal to include the teachings of Mains, JR to account for real-time traffic in a shipyard, as taught by the cited portion of Mains, Jr.
As per Claim 13, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein automatically determining a workflow for the truck in response to the digital check-in comprises: comparing a check-in time of the digital check-in to an appointment time associated with the truck (see para. 123); adding a first task to the workflow responsive to the appointment time being before the check-in time (see para. 123); and adding a second task to the workflow responsive to the appointment time being after the check-in time (see para. 124). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Clam 14, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr providing an integrated appointment system accessible via an application or web browser by third-party logistics providers, carriers, customers, vendors, and yard operations personnel, wherein the automatically determining the workflow for the truck is based on the integrated appointment system, wherein the method further comprises causing shipments to be arranged in staging area based on the integrated appointment system (see para. 52 and 69). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 15, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein executing the workflow comprises causing a forklift to move to a location indicated by the workflow and associated with loading or unloading of the truck (see para. 50, 80 and 119). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirynen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. WO 2023/007849 A1 in view of Elenjickal et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0394419 A1 in further view of Unnikrishnan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0067626 A1 and Mains, JR 2019/0066033 A1 and Gabeler-Lee U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No.
As per Claim 6, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein automatically determining a workflow for the truck comprises providing handling in response to a mismatch between the carrier data associated with the appointment and an actual identity of the truck, of a driver of the truck, or of an asset hauled by the truck (see para. 129). Mains, Jr does not describe exception handling as described in Gabeler-Lee (see para. 63). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quirynen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. WO 2023/007849 A1 in view of Elenjickal et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0394419 A1 in further view of Unnikrishnan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0067626 A1 and Mains, JR 2019/0066033 A1 and Wells U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0027309 A1
As per Claim 7, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Wells wherein validating at least one of the driver identity, the truck identity, or the asset identity comprises collecting, by a camera, an image of the truck and determining an actual truck identity by executing automated image processing of the image of the truck (see para. 176). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 10, Quirynen in view of Elenjickal in further view of Mains, JR teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Quirynen does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Mains, Jr wherein automatically determining a workflow for the truck using an integrated data structure comprises ingesting data from a plurality of sources and translating the data into the integrated data structure, wherein the plurality of sources comprise the warehouse management system, the transportation management system, and an asset tracking system configured to track movement of equipment in the shipping yard (see para. 54). Quirynen does not explicitly describe a camera see para. 176). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 8, 11, 16 and 19 are not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights