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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 9/3/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101 paragraph.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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 1-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding 1-4, 6-12, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative recite:
obtaining, by the control unit information indicating one or more of: which vehicle that is to be loaded and/or offloaded, a target time for vehicle departure from a location and a vehicle capacity; initiating, by the control unit loading and/or offloading of goods to and/or from the vehicle using one or more loading and/or offloading assets;
receiving, by the control unit real-time information about an amount of goods that has been loaded and/or offloaded to and/or from the one or more loading and/or offloading assets;
determining, by the control unit, based on the real-time information, that the loading and/or offloading of the vehicle will be finished before, at or after the target time for vehicle departure; and
when the loading and/or offloading will be finished before or after the target time, providing, by the control unit, information indicating that the loading and/or offloading will be finished before or after the target time, wherein determining that the loading and/or offloading of the vehicle will be finished before, at or after the target time for vehicle departure is based on, for each time the loading and/or offloading asset picks up and/or delivers goods to and/or from the location, then the remaining goods to be picked up and/or delivered from the location is located further and further away from the vehicle or closer to the vehicle such that travel distance of the loading and/or offloading asset changes for each time it picks up and/or delivers goods to and/or from the location.
Under step 2A (prong 1), these steps correspond to 1) collecting information, 2) analyzing information and 3) providing or presenting results which courts consistently held as type of information to fall within categories of abstract ideas such as for example methods of organizing human activity (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the above limitations of claims 1 recite the performance of commercial interactions including an activity, such as tracking and evaluating loading and unloading of vehicles. For example, a human operator can gather information about which vehicle needs to be loaded, physically initiate loading process, coordinating with others and using loading equipment to move goods to and from the vehicle, monitor the process and estimate when the loading will be completed. After making their determinations humans can relay information about completion time to logistics coordinators.
The step of “determining whether loading will finish before at or after the target time, constitutes mathematical evaluation and prediction, which falls within the abstract idea of mental processes.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, dependent claims recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-12 are understood to recite at least a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional element such as control unit, loading/offloading assets, “sending instructions” or “initiating loading”. Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Even assuming Hancendo steps of obtaining information, initiating loading/unloading…, etc. are taken as additional, these elements represent nothing more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, and/or data storage activity). Such activity is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see: 2019 PEG, p. 55).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG).
Under prong 2 of step 2A, dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. This is again because claims 2-4, 6-12, rely on the additional elements set forth in claims 1. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claim 1 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
The additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 does not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, representative claims do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-4, 6-12 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-12 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 2-12 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “that the steps cannot be performed in human mind”. Examiner does not agree. The “determining” step is a mathematical prediction ETA, which courts found to be a mental process. Computer performing a calculation that humans could theoretically perform qualifies as an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the invention improves loading/offloading operations. Examiner does not agree. Improving logistical management is not a technical improvement to computer or machine. McRo applies only when the claim recites specific rules improving how the computer performs a technological task. The claims do not recite a particular new algorithm – only the broad instruction to “determine whether loading will finish before or after the target time”.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner does not agree. Sending a start signal or initiating loading is generic control, well-understood, routing and conventional. The “initiating” is merely instructing a machine to do what machines already do and it is not an improvement in machine operation. The loading/offloading assets operates exactly as they did before, the claim merely monitors the process.
Applicant relies on Example 40 of the 2019 PEG. Example 40 involves a claim where a control algorithm directly modifies machine behavior. Applicant’s Claim 1 recites “providing information” step simply reports a result, which courts consistently treat as insufficient integration. There is no control step that alters operation of the loading/offloading assets.
With respect to the prior art of record the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. None of the prior art of record, neither singularly nor in combination with other limitations, teach or show the features present in independent claim 1 of the application: providing, by the control unit, information indicating that the loading and/or offloading will be finished before or after the target time, wherein determining that the loading and/or offloading of the vehicle will be finished before, at or after the target time for vehicle departure is based on, for each time the loading and/or offloading asset picks up and/or delivers goods to and/or from the location, then the remaining goods to be picked up and/or delivered from the location is located further and further away from the vehicle or closer to the vehicle such that travel distance of the loading and/or offloading asset changes for each time it picks up and/or delivers goods to and/or from the location.
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 MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627