Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 10/24/2025.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 10/24/2025 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 7 of this final office action.
On page 11 of the Response, the Applicant submits “the subject matter is directed to a management system for a commercial shipping service. The Office is overbroadly characterizing the subject matter by abstracting the claims to a degree in which it is simply untethered to the limitations recited in the claim. Moreover, the Office’s characterization completely omits the problem the instant subject matter solves, which relates to how to track brokered loads”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite concepts of organizing human activity. As currently drafted, the independent claims recite limitations involving receiving booking information related to a shipment of a load to a destination using a carrier, receiving information associated with a shipment and asset associated with transporting the load, determining whether a second carrier identified in the shipment information does not correspond to a first carrier identified in the booking information and if the second carrier is registered for tracking, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information, associating a tracking identifier with the booking information, retrieving carrier information from a governmental regulatory agency, registering a second carrier for tracking, retrieving location data in response to a request, and providing tracking/location information to a client/user. As disclosed by the Applicant in the Specification, “systems and techniques are described for predicting delays in carrier shipping services. The systems and techniques can visibility and identification of issues in potential shipments in carrier shipping services” (¶ [0004]); “a method is provided for tracking shipments” (¶[0005]); “an originator of a load (e.g., a shipment) contracts with a consigning party, or a carrier service, to transport the load from an originating location 102 to a destination location 104” (¶ [0037]); and “a client device that allows monitoring of the carrier and the load while in transit […] the shipment service 210 associates the ELD of the vehicle carrying the load with information in the shipment service 210, allowing the shipment service 210 to provide transit information to various clients” (¶ [0044]).
Thus, the independent claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, involve steps for managing booking/shipment information corresponding to a commercial/contracted shipping service for transporting a load, managing tracking identifier information associated with the shipment, and providing tracking information to a client/user (i.e., commercial entities involved in the shipping service). Thus, these limitations are considered to involve concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations, contracts, and sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
On page 12 of the Response, the Applicant submits the “instant claims specifically recite an improvement to a tracking system using a registration process based on a captured image and provides an improvement to the tracking system by enabling tracking of brokered loads. The claims explicitly cover particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a technical field or functioning of a computer, such as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The amended independent claims further introduce the additional elements of “wherein the mobile computing device is configured to access an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device”. This additional element, as currently drafted, merely recites the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive and process information. The Examiner notes “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more […] (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information)” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, because the computer (i.e., mobile computing device) and its claimed functions are merely recited as a generic computer tools and instructions for receiving data and processing data at a high level of generality, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, the Applicant discloses, in the Specification, “the application may be a native application that is retrieved from an app store and configured to execute based on scanning the QR code” (¶ [0054]). As such, the claimed steps for “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).The Examiner notes “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Furthermore, the independent claims further introduce the additional elements of “associating an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) of the carrier vehicle with the tracking identifier within the tracking network, wherein the tracking network is a distributed network”. Again, this additional element merely recites the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive and store information within a network. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as generic computer tool and instruction by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On pages 12-13 of the Response, the Applicant submits “the instant claims relate to a system that can “retrieving real-time location data from an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) the ELD of the carrier vehicle registered with carrier vehicle registered with the governmental regulatory agency based on the tracking identifier” based on presenting a carrier portal application at an ingress point and inducing a registration process”, and “in sum, Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 11, when viewed as a whole, integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to the field of shipment tracking”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a technical field or functioning of a computer, such as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted further above, the additional elements of the independent claims, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, recite the use a computer in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, and process information. In particular, The additional elements of the claim include a “mobile computing device”, “carrier application portal”, steps for “providing, to a mobile computing device associated with a carrier vehicle located at an ingress point of a shipping facility, carrier application portal for providing shipment information associated with the load, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to access an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device”, steps for “receiving, from the mobile computing device at the ingress point, the shipment information and asset information […] based on input into the carrier application portal […]”, steps for “automatically registering the second carrier within the tracking network”, steps for “associating an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) of the carried vehicle with the tracking identifier within the tracking network, wherein the tracking network is a distributed network”, and steps for “retrieving real-time location data from the ELD of the carrier vehicle registered with the governmental regulatory agency”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools, components, and instructions for inputting/outputting data, storing data, and processing data at a high level of generality. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, as noted above, the claimed steps for “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the courts have recognized that features for electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-10 are directed to a process (“a method”), and claims 11-20 are directed to a machine (“an apparatus”). Thus, claims 1-20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving booking information related to book shipment of a load to a destination using a first carrier;
Receiving […] at the ingress point, the shipment information and asset information associated with transport of the load based on input […] while the carrier vehicle is at the ingress point;
Determining whether a second carrier identified in the shipment information […] does not correspond to the first carrier identified in the booking information associated with booking of the load and if the second carrier is registered for tracking within a tracking network;
When the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier: retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information provided while the carrier vehicle was at the ingress point;
Associating at least the tracking identifier with the booking information;
When the second carrier is not registered for tracking within the tracking network, retrieving carrier information corresponding to the second carrier from the governmental regulatory agency and […] registering the second carrier […];
In response to a location request from a client, retrieving real-time location data […] based on the tracking identifier; and
Providing tracking information identifying at least a current location of the load to the client based on the location data.
As disclosed by the Applicant in the Specification, “systems and techniques are described for predicting delays in carrier shipping services. The systems and techniques can visibility and identification of issues in potential shipments in carrier shipping services” (¶ [0004]); “a method is provided for tracking shipments” (¶[0005]); “an originator of a load (e.g., a shipment) contracts with a consigning party, or a carrier service, to transport the load from an originating location 102 to a destination location 104” (¶ [0037]).
Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification and the claim limitations identified above, claim 1 is directed towards managing/providing information associated with a commercial shipping service for transporting a load, wherein a booking of the transportation service involves a shipper contracting a carrier service. As such, these identified limitations which are directed towards receiving booking information related to a shipment of a load to a destination using a carrier, receiving information associated with a shipment and asset associated with transporting the load, determining whether a second carrier identified in the shipment information does not correspond to a first carrier identified in the booking information and if the second carrier is registered for tracking, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information, associating a tracking identifier with the booking information, retrieving carrier information from a governmental regulatory agency, registering a second carrier for tracking, retrieving location data in response to a request, and providing tracking/location information are considered to recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations, contracts, and sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Furthermore, these limitations recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the claim recites features for collecting information (i.e., receiving booking information, receiving shipment information and asset information, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency when the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier, retrieving carrier information corresponding to the second carrier from the governmental regulatory agency, and retrieving real-time location data in response to a location request based on the tracking identifier), analyzing/comparing information (i.e., determining whether an identified second carrier does not correspond to a first carrier identified in the booking information and if the second carrier is registered for tracking within a tracking network), organizing information (i.e., associating the tracking identifier with the booking information, registering the second carrier), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis (i.e., providing tracking information identifying a current location of the load based on the location data) - which is the abstract idea of mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Thus, claims 1 and 2-10, by virtue of dependence, recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “mobile computing device”, “carrier application portal”, steps for “providing, to a mobile computing device associated with a carrier vehicle located at an ingress point of a shipping facility, carrier application portal for providing shipment information associated with the load, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to access an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device”, steps for “receiving, from the mobile computing device at the ingress point, the shipment information and asset information […] based on input into the carrier application portal […]”, steps for “automatically registering the second carrier within the tracking network”, steps for “associating an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) of the carried vehicle with the tracking identifier within the tracking network, wherein the tracking network is a distributed network”, and steps for “retrieving real-time location data from the ELD of the carrier vehicle registered with the governmental regulatory agency”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools, components, and instructions for inputting/outputting data, storing data, and processing data at a high level of generality. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools, components, and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the Applicant discloses, in the Specification, “the application may be a native application that is retrieved from an app store and configured to execute based on scanning the QR code” (¶ [0054]). Thus, the additional elements involving “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because these claimed steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Furthermore, the additional elements involving “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As noted by the Applicant in the Specification, “the application may be a native application that is retrieved from an app store and configured to execute based on scanning the QR code” (¶ [0054]). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, this additional element of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 11, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive booking information related to book shipment of a load to a destination using a first carrier;
Receive […] at the ingress point, the shipment information and asset information associated with transport of the load based on input […] while the carrier vehicle is at the ingress point;
Determine if a second carrier identified in the shipment information […] does not correspond to the first carrier identified in the booking information associated with booking of the load and if the second carrier is registered for tracking within a tracking network;
When the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier: retrieve a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information provided while the carrier vehicle was at the ingress point;
Associate at least the tracking identifier with the booking information;
When the second carrier is not registered for tracking within the tracking network: retrieving carrier information corresponding to the second carrier from the governmental regulatory agency and […] registering the second carrier […];
In response to a location request from a client, retrieve location data […] based on the tracking identifier; and
Provide tracking information identifying at least a current location of the load to the client based on the location data.
As disclosed by the Applicant in the Specification, “systems and techniques are described for predicting delays in carrier shipping services. The systems and techniques can visibility and identification of issues in potential shipments in carrier shipping services” (¶ [0004]); “a method is provided for tracking shipments” (¶[0005]); “an originator of a load (e.g., a shipment) contracts with a consigning party, or a carrier service, to transport the load from an originating location 102 to a destination location 104” (¶ [0037]).
Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification and the claim limitations identified above, claim 11 is directed towards managing/providing information associated with a commercial shipping service for transporting a load, wherein a booking of the transportation service involves a shipper contracting a carrier service. As such, these identified limitations which are directed towards receiving booking information related to a shipment of a load to a destination using a carrier, receiving information associated with a shipment and asset associated with transporting the load, determining whether a second carrier identified in the shipment information does not correspond to a first carrier identified in the booking information and if the second carrier is registered for tracking, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information, associating a tracking identifier with the booking information, retrieving carrier information from a governmental regulatory agency, registering a second carrier for tracking, retrieving location data in response to a request, and providing tracking/location information are considered to recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations, contracts, and sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Furthermore, these limitations recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the claim recites features for collecting information (i.e., receiving booking information, receiving shipment information and asset information, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency when the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier, retrieving carrier information corresponding to the second carrier from the governmental regulatory agency, and retrieving real-time location data in response to a location request based on the tracking identifier), analyzing/comparing information (i.e., determining whether an identified second carrier does not correspond to a first carrier identified in the booking information and if the second carrier is registered for tracking within a tracking network), organizing information (i.e., associating the tracking identifier with the booking information, registering the second carrier), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis (i.e., providing tracking information identifying a current location of the load based on the location data) - which is the abstract idea of mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Thus, claims 11 and 12-20, by virtue of dependence, recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “memory”, “processor coupled to the at least one memory”, “mobile computing device”, “carrier application portal”, steps to “render, at a mobile computing device associated with a carrier vehicle located at an ingress point of a shipping facility, a carrier application portal for collecting shipment information associated with the load, wherein the mobile computing device is configured to access an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device”, steps to “receive, at the mobile computing device at the ingress point, the shipment information and asset information […] based on input into the carrier application portal […]”, steps for “automatically registering the second carrier within the tracking network”,, steps to “associate an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) of the carrier vehicle with the tracking identifier within the tracking network, wherein the tracking network is a distributed network”, and steps to “retrieve location data from the ELD of the carrier vehicle registered with the governmental regulatory agency”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools, components, and instructions for inputting/outputting data and processing data at a high level of generality. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the Applicant discloses, in the Specification, “the application may be a native application that is retrieved from an app store and configured to execute based on scanning the QR code” (¶ [0054]). Thus, the additional elements involving “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because these claimed steps amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Furthermore, the additional elements involving “access[ing] an address associated with the carrier application portal in response to capturing an image at the mobile computing device” fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As noted by the Applicant in the Specification, “the application may be a native application that is retrieved from an app store and configured to execute based on scanning the QR code” (¶ [0054]). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, this additional element of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites further steps for collecting information indicating that a carrier vehicle is at an ingress point, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further recites additional elements of a “mobile computing device” and “carrier application portal”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and components for inputting/outputting data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 recites further steps for collecting request information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further recites additional elements of “the address for retrieving the carrier application portal”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and instructions for retrieving data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 recites further steps for collecting image data and analyzing image data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces additional elements of “an entrance detecting device” and use of “optical character recognition”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and components for collecting and analyzing data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 recites further steps for collecting information associated with a carrier vehicle, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 4 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 further describes the collected data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 further describes the collected tracking identifier data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 8 recites further steps for collecting and organizing information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 9 further describes the collected and provided data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 10 further describes the collected and provided data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 8-9 from which the claim depends.
Claim 12 recites further steps for collecting information indicating that a carrier vehicle is at an ingress point, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further recites additional elements of a “mobile computing device” and “carrier application portal”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and components for inputting/outputting data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 13 recites further steps for collecting request information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further recites additional elements of a “the address for retrieving carrier application portal”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and instructions for retrieving data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 14 recites further steps for collecting image data and analyzing image data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim further introduces additional elements of “an entrance detecting device” and use of “optical character recognition”. The additional elements are merely recited as generic computer tools and components for collecting and analyzing data at a high level of generality.
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 15 recites further steps for collecting information associated with a carrier vehicle, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 14 from which the claim depends.
Claim 16 further describes the collected data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 17 further describes the collected tracking identifier data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 18 recites further steps for collecting and organizing information, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 19 further describes the collected and provided data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 18 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 further describes the collected and provided data, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 11 and 18-19 from which the claim depends.
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-10 and 12-20 by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 11 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1 and 11 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1 and 11. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Mains et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0056103;
Mains et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0334736;
White et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0147398;
Mains (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0056103) discloses a system configured to schedule a shipment pick-up appointment for a carrier at a warehouse. Accordingly, when a carrier/driver arrives at the warehouse, they may be directed to check-in for the pickup appointment of the shipment. The carrier/driver may then provide information (e.g., DOT#) in order to verify the validity of the carrier/driver via text message. In some cases, the carrier may be an “invalid” carrier, thus indicating that the carrier is not associated with the pickup appointment for a shipment. Mains, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 11. In particular, Mains does not teach when the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information provided while the carrier vehicle was at the ingress or egress point. Furthermore, Mains does not teach associating the tracking identifier with the booking information.
Mains (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0334736) discloses a system configured to gather shipment information from a driver by prompting the driver for shipment information via the driver’s mobile device. The driver’s mobile device may execute an app that enables the system to gather information from the driver. As such, the driver may utilize the mobile device app to input pickup-confirmations and perform warehouse check-in operations. In particular, upon the driver’s arrival at a warehouse, the driver’s mobile device app may display shipment information associated with the driver (e.g., order number, truck/trailer number, DOT number, etc). Furthermore, the system is configured to collect location data associated with a shipment in real time and provide the location data via a screen. The screen includes a tracking view that provides a visual display of in-transit shipments in a map view that is continuously updated. Mains, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 11. In particular, Mains does not teach when the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information provided while the carrier vehicle was at the ingress or egress point. Furthermore, Mains does not teach associating the tracking identifier with the booking information.
White (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0147398) discloses a system comprising a freight forwarder computer system and a container carrier computer system. The first freight forwarder computer system is configured to use a shipment identifier to submit a tracking request to the container carrier computer system. The shipment identifier may include a booking number, bill number, and container (carrier code). Accordingly, the freight forwarder computer system may communicate a shipment identifier/tracking request to the container carrier computer system, a response with tracking data associated with the shipment identifier is returned to the freight forwarder computer system, and a record is created in a database by the freight forwarder computer system that associates the shipment identifier (i.e., including a booking number) and the requested tracking data. White, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 11. In particular, White does not teach when the first carrier does not correspond to the second carrier, retrieving a tracking identifier from a governmental regulatory agency based on the asset information provided while the carrier vehicle was at the ingress or egress point.
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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628