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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The specification describes a physical problem in the loading and unloading of cargo vehicles. In particular, according to the specification:
For example, truck structures in the form of seaworthy containers are only accessible through a door in an end wall, such that access to goods loaded into such a container may essentially only be possible according to a LIFO principle (last in, first out). Thus, access to goods other than the last loaded goods may require that other goods be unloaded first and later reloaded. This leads to excess time and use of corresponding tools, for example, material-handling equipment.
(Specification at paragraph [0012]).” The Examiner agrees that this is a problem that is not rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims as amended describe a business problem and provides a business improvement. The improvement is not a technological one.
Appilicant further argues that, “Even if the evaluating and optimizing steps were considered to recite a judicial exception, claim 1 as a whole integrates any such exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites at least the following additional elements: (i) the trailer or container of the at least one vehicle, accessible from a rear of the trailer or container via a door; (ii) loading the trailer or container by placing each good at the location specified for that good by the optimized candidate loading configuration, including leaving the passageway open; (iii) causing the at least one vehicle to drive the optimized candidate route to the predefined unloading points; and (iv) at one of the predefined unloading points, unloading the at least one good located at the front from the trailer or container via the passageway without first unloading any other good of the plurality of goods to gain access to it.” Applicant then asserts that these additional elements are an improvement to technology. The Examiner disagrees. The rationale is the same as argued above.
Further contrary to Applicant’s assertions, there is no transformation that occurs in the claims. Going from a loaded state to an unloaded state is not what one would describe as a transformation with respect to 35 USC 101.
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. 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, 3-6, 8, 10-11 and 15 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:
providing at least one candidate loading configuration of the at least one vehicle;
the at least one candidate loading configuration specifying a location of each good of the plurality of goods within the at least one vehicle;
providing at least one candidate route leading successively to all predefined unloading points of the plurality of predefined unloading points and operating the at least one vehicle;
determining at least one predicted time schedule of the trip route to the unloading points using the at least one candidate loading configuration and the at least one candidate route in conjunction with at least map data, traffic data, and information about an availability of offloading places at the predefined unloading points,
evaluating, using the said predicted time schedule, the candidate loading configuration and at least one the candidate route according to a predefined cost function;
optimizing the at least one candidate loading configuration and the at least one candidate route with an objective that a reevaluation using the predefined cost function after the predicted time schedule has been updated leads to an optimized evaluation;
the optimized evaluation producing an optimized candidate loading configuration and an optimized candidate route, wherein the optimized candidate loading configuration (i)includes new locations for at least some goods of the plurality of goods, and (ii) defines an empty space inside the trailer or container, the trailer or container being accessible from a rear of the trailer or container via a door, the empty space defining a passageway that runs through the trailer or container from the rear to a front of the trailer or container and that provides access to at least one good of the plurality of goods located at the front for unloading from the trailer or container;
loading the trailer or container with the plurality of goods according to the optimized candidate loading configuration by placing each good at a location specified for that good by the optimized candidate loading configuration, including placing at least some of the goods in the new locations and leaving the passageway open;
causing the at least one vehicle to drive the optimized candidate route to the predefined unloading points; and
at one of the predefined unloading points, unloading the at least one good located at the front from the trailer or container via the passageway without first unloading any other good of the plurality of goods from the trailer or container to gain access to the at least one good located at the front,
wherein the at least one candidate loading configuration and the at least one candidate route are optimized by (i) reducing a duration of an overall predicted time schedule of the trip route to the predefined unloading points, (ii) reducing a duration of a time that at least one perishable good of the plurality of goods spends in the trailer or container according to the at least one predicted time schedule, and/or (iii(v) reducing an expected energy consumption by the at least one vehicle during the at least one predicted time schedule.
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 certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “vehicle, trailer, container, computer program, non-transitory-machine readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. 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, vehicle, computer program, non-transitory-machine readable medium. 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);
- (computer program, non-transitory-machine readable medium)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(vehicle, trailer and container)
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.
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.
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