DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment.
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.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 11-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 19-20 directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 11, and 19, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11, and 19, is
receive decision data indicating decisions for transportation of cargo from one or more originating locations to one or more destination locations by one or more vehicles, wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles;
generate a plurality of scenarios, by:
generating a baseline scenario including a plurality of decisions indicated by the decision data;
performing a plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by making one or more adjustments to the plurality of decisions of the baseline scenario, wherein the adjustments include adjusting at least one of: a cargo carrier choice associated with the one or more vehicles a fuel source for the one or more vehicles, wherein the fuel source is adjustable between at least one private fuel source and at least one public fuel source a facility used during the transportation of the cargo; an offset for off offsetting emissions produced by the one or more vehicle; a market-based measure associated with the one or more vehicles or the transportation of the cargo; a transportation equipment fill amount of the one or more vehicles or a deadhead reduction strategy to be implemented for the one or more vehicles; and
saving the modifications of the baseline scenario as the plurality of scenarios;
determine emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios;
generate one or more updates to the transportation based on the plurality of scenarios and the emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios; and
output the one or more updates to the transportation.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing transportation.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (step [A], receive decision data), analyzing the collected information (steps [B]-[G] scenario modeling); and displaying result information (step [H]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “system for vehicle transportation, the system comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to,” “wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles;” “output device.”
Claim 11: “by a processing circuit,” “wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles;” “to an output device.”
Claim 19: “One or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” “wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles;” “to an output device.”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, generate, modify, save, determine, and output information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0053]-[0054] and [0115]-[0117]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[H] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
While examiner contends that “wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles;” are part of the abstract idea, they are still nothing more than an attempt to link the additional elements to a field of use. Claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[H] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), in addition to “vehicle,” simply being attempts to link the additional elements to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing transportation. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2 and 12, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps and description of generating data which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of generating data that programs one or more autonomous vehicle to perform transportation. The generating step is generic and result-based function, the specification does not provide technological detail of how) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 3 and 13, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps generating and displaying data which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 4 and 14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional description information regarding to the adjusting includes fuel type, fuel source, transportation type, and fill indication. The additional information does not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. No new additional element has been added. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 5, 15, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps generating a digital twin based on the decision data and performing modification to the baseline scenario by modifying the digital twin. These steps do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 6, 7, and 16, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional description information regarding to the emissions production information. The additional information does not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. No new additional element has been added. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 8, 9, and 17, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps receiving, identifying, and generating information which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 10 and 18, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps determining, analyzing, and generating information which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gomila et al (US 20200284600 A1, hereinafter, “Gomila”).
Claim 1, Gomila discloses a system for vehicle transportation, the system comprising one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (para. [0036], mode of transport; vehicle; transportation system; Para. [0045], [0069], carbon offset system 120 includes environmental impact server 122):
receive decision data indicating decisions for transportation of cargo from one or more originating locations to one or more destination locations by one or more vehicles, wherein the one or more vehicles are configured to transport between the one or more originating locations and the one or more destination locations by operating one or more tractive components of the one or more vehicles (Gomila, [0006] "receiving from a user an input specifying a destination" and "monitoring movements of the user as the user completes the trip by travelling to the destination, wherein monitoring the movements comprises tracking a distance travelled for each mode of transport taken by the user". [0034]: transport; [0041], [0050]: start point and end point; [0012], The system further "receives geolocation information from the user device" and processes "trip data from the completed trip"; [0052]: “inputting trip parameters such as destination, travel start time or destination arrival time, limitations for mode of travel, preferred mode of travel”. More in [0047], [0048], and [0070] for monitoring and storing trip data);
generate a plurality of scenarios, by:
generating a baseline scenario including a plurality of decisions indicated by the decision data ([0006]: baseline GHG... baseline transport; [0041] and [0052]: “Non-baseline trip search results (in the form of available trip plans) are returned and are displayed to the user along with their comparison to the baseline trip (e.g. SOBT) at block 380. The user selects from one of the available trip plans at block 382.”);
performing a plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by making one or more adjustments to the plurality of decisions of the baseline scenario (para. [0054], “the user will be presented with the available mode or combination of modes of transport to the destination, which are alternative to the baseline trip (e.g. single occupancy vehicle trip, in certain embodiments). Available modes of transport may include, for example, walking, bicycling, bicycle-share, bus, transit rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, ferry, taxi (e.g. hybrid or electric taxi), car-share, ride-share or carpooling, cable car, electric vehicles, park and ride, and the like. In particular embodiments, the modal shift application identifies or recommends the trip option that has some desirable characteristic or combination of characteristics such as low cost, reduced travel time, sustainability, health, and the like. In some embodiments, comparisons are made between the located alternative trip options and a SOBT, in terms of parameters such as cost, time, carbon emissions or environmental impact, and the like”), wherein the adjustments include adjusting at least one of: a cargo carrier choice associated with the one or more vehicles a fuel source for the one or more vehicles, wherein the fuel source is adjustable between at least one private fuel source and at least one public fuel source a facility used during the transportation of the cargo; an offset for off offsetting emissions produced by the one or more vehicle; a market-based measure associated with the one or more vehicles or the transportation of the cargo; a transportation equipment fill amount of the one or more vehicles or a deadhead reduction strategy to be implemented for the one or more vehicles (Gomila, para. [0037] and [0054] discloses choosing between different modes of transport like ride-hailing and taxi of hybrid or electric, which is representative of cargo carrier choice; para. [0043] disclosing electricity charged from the grid. Para. [0045], public and private transportation. Para. [0037] discloses facilities like a bus stop or transit rail station, which represents a facility used during the transportation; Para. [0003] discussed the purpose is to generate carbon offset and create a market-based measure of carbon credits disclosing an offset for offsetting emissions and a market-based measure); and
saving the modifications of the baseline scenario as the plurality of scenarios ([0071], [0074], disclosing the storing of the information such as emissions factors for each mode of transport, the differences in values between project and baseline trip parameters. In para. [0054] and [0069] disclosing the displaying of the search result which is saved/stored on server side);
determine emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios (Gomila, [0006]) "calculating project GHG emissions for the trip, based at least in part on the emissions factor associated with each mode of transport and the distance travelled for each mode of transport". [0037]: GHG reductions and GHG emissions. Para. [0044], The "project trip" is defined as the "actual trip completed under the carbon offset program". [0074]: “Method 170 identifies and computes the project trip parameters (at blocks 172, 174) and the baseline trip parameters (at blocks 173, 175), and determines differences in various project trip and baseline trip parameters, including net GHG emissions savings.” [0076]: The system calculates these emissions by "summing emissions from all sub-trips taken with the various modes of transport");
generate one or more updates to the transportation based on the plurality of scenarios and the emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios (para. [0044], [0054], [0055], [0069], [0074], and [0076] disclosing the transmitting generated result information to the graphical user interface of user device or head-up display (HUD) over a windshield); and
output the one or more updates to the transportation to an output device ([0012]: "determine a plurality of transport options to the destination" and communicate these to a "user device". [0054], [0055], The user is presented with "trip results 304" which include "a plurality of trip plans or options" on a "graphical user interface screen shot 300A" of the user's device. Also see [0069]).
Claim 2, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: generate data that programs one or more autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles causing the one or more autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles to perform the transportation (para. [0036], [0098], remote-controlled vehicles including drone).
Claim 3, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: generate a user interface including the one or more updates; and cause a display device of a user device to display the user interface ([0054]-[0055], displaying "trip results" including a "plurality of trip plans or options" on a "graphical user interface screen shot 300A" on a user's device).
Claim 5, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to generate a digital twin based on the decision data, the digital twin representing the baseline scenario; wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform the plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by modifying the digital twin (Based on the app. Specification para. [0047], [0049], baseline scenario is representative of a digital twin. In Gomila, [0006]: baseline GHG... baseline transport; [0041] and [0052]: “Non-baseline trip search results (in the form of available trip plans) are returned and are displayed to the user along with their comparison to the baseline trip (e.g. SOBT) at block 380.” [0054], “the user will be presented with the available mode or combination of modes of transport to the destination, which are alternative to the baseline trip (e.g. single occupancy vehicle trip, in certain embodiments). These are examples of modifications to the baseline scenario by modifying the digital twin).
Claim 8, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: receive a scenario that includes an update to one or more of the decisions of the baseline scenario, wherein the update is based on a user input; and identify a particular emissions production resulting from the scenario (para. [0052] disclosing “searches for a trip by inputting trip parameters such as destination, travel start time or destination arrival time, limitations for mode of travel, preferred mode of travel, walking or biking time, etc.” which describes the user input for scenario of planned project trip. In para. [0054], “the modal shift application identifies or recommends the trip option that has some desirable characteristic or combination of characteristics such as low cost, reduced travel time, sustainability, health, and the like. In some embodiments, comparisons are made between the located alternative trip options and a SOBT, in terms of parameters such as cost, time, carbon emissions or environmental impact, and the like. The evaluation and ranking of trip options based on these characteristics may be accomplished by comparing differences in parameters of the project trip and the SOBT, using a method such as the method 210 of FIG. 11 (described below). Available trip options, a recommended trip option, and comparisons of trip options to SOBT can be displayed to the user on the graphical user interface of the modal shift application.” Further in para. [0105]-[0108]: “Project GHG emissions can be calculated using other methods than as described above, such as by developing a life-cycle assessment (LCA) or alternatives of each transport mode available, instead of emissions factors for operation; and/or by obtaining real-time access to vehicle emissions based on performance. Baseline GHG emissions can be calculated using other methods than as described above, such as by determining a baseline emissions based on statistical data of a set of users over a period of time, creating stratified baselines based on a set of characteristics of individuals that live and work in a particular area and belong to a certain demographic, including the complete LCA of the single-occupancy vehicle for the baseline calculation rather than only the emission factors during operation, conducting user surveys to obtain data (e.g. to indicate ownership of a vehicle and access the location of the vehicle owned by the user) to help describe the users' movement patterns and other relevant data in order to establish the baseline, obtaining real-time access to vehicle fleets' emissions, or any combination of the above solutions. Project GHG emissions for the use of PEVs as an alternate mode of transport could be established through a user indicating ownership of a PEV (e.g. through a survey, application embedded into the infotainment system of the PEV itself, through statistics data, etc.) and the user selecting the PEV option for calculating a route to the destination. The carbon offset system would then determine the emissions based on the applicable PEV emissions factor and the distance travelled using the PEV. The methods and systems described herein may be applied to quantifying the carbon savings from the use of technology or systems in vehicles that reduce GHG emissions, such as “auto-stop” features or eco-efficient routes proposed by GPS systems, and trips taken by vehicles such as PEVs which have a lower carbon impact that the SOBT.” Which Gomila discloses the update to the decisions of the baseline scenario and identify a particular emissions production resulting from the scenario).
Claim 9, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: receive an emissions level; identify one or more scenarios of the plurality of scenarios that are associated with an emissions less than the emissions level; and generate the one or more updates to the transportation based on the one or more scenarios identified that are associated with the emissions less than the emissions level (para. [0094] and para. [0105]-[0108] disclosing receiving PEV emission less than baseline GHG emissions scenario and generating update in real-time).
Claim 10, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: determine, based on the decision data, one or more predicted actions of one or more carriers; analyze the plurality of scenarios with the one or more predicted actions to determine the emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios; and generate the one or more updates to the transportation based on the plurality of scenarios, the one or more predicted actions, and the emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios (para. [0037], [0054], [0094], and [0105]-[0108]).
Claim 11, Gomila discloses a method of vehicle transportation (Abstract). Claim 11 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 1, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 12, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 2, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 13, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 3, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 15, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 5, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 17, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 9, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 18, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 10, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 19, Gomila discloses one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (para. [0067] and [0049]). Claim 19 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 1, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 20, Gomila discloses the one or more memory devices of claim 19. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 5, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomila et al (US 20200284600 A1, hereinafter, “Gomila”) in view of Meroux et al (US 20200242858 A1, hereinafter, “Meroux”).
Claim 4, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform the plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by adjusting:
fuel or energy types (para. [0036], [0037], [0054], [0073], gas-powered automobiles, hybrid, or electric);
transportation types including at least one of truck transportation, air transportation, boat transportation, or rail transportation (para. [0036] and [0039] mode of transport);
However, Gomila fails to expressly teach:
transportation equipment indicating a type of equipment used to carry the cargo; and
transportation equipment fill indicating an amount of the cargo included within transportation performed with the transportation equipment.
Nonetheless, Meroux is directed to a system that collects the exact type of real-world vehicle and fleet data necessary for a detailed analysis of a commercial operation (Meroux, [0037]), to specifically teach,
transportation equipment indicating a type of equipment used to carry the cargo (Meroux: [0025], [0087], [0096] disclosing various type of fleet for carrying goods or passengers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method for vehicle transportation of Gomila to include the feature of Meroux’s system collecting data from fleets of different vehicles to include equipment type and amount of cargo as primary variables for emission determination. Since both are analogous in application, the adapting of the system from personal transport to cargo transport (Meroux [0025] and [0087]) is a mere substitution of the object being transported, the result would be predictable.
Claim 14, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 4, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claims 6, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomila et al (US 20200284600 A1, hereinafter, “Gomila”) in view of Zhang et al (US 20240409238 A1, hereinafter, “Zhang”).
Claim 6, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1. Gomila further discloses,
wherein the emissions production is a total emissions indicating operational emissions, feedstock emissions, and fuel production emissions (Gomila, para. [0073] discloses emissions from burning of fossil fuels, which is fuel production emissions and indirect emission which would include operational emissions and feedstock emissions).
However, Gomila fails to expressly disclose the specifics of feedstock emissions as part of total emissions.
Nonetheless, Zhang is analogous field of determining emissions using decision tool models, which specifically teaches,
wherein the emissions production is a total emissions indicating operational emissions, feedstock emissions, and fuel production emissions (para. [0023]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method for vehicle transportation of Gomila to include the feature of including feedstock emissions as part of total emissions production for the motivation of accounting for all emissions in closed-looped that provides for sustainability for the fuel (para. [0024]).
Claim 7, Gomila discloses the system of claim 1.
However, Gomila fails to expressly disclose wherein the emissions production is an emissions intensity.
Nonetheless, Zhang is analogous field of determining emissions using decision tool models, which specifically teaches,
wherein the emissions production is an emissions intensity (Zhang: para. [0020], and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method for vehicle transportation of Gomila to include the feature of emission intensity for the motivation of the emissions measurement can be “carbon intensity” is a well-known metric in the field that its selection would be an obvious design choice. In such, provides good understanding of the business growth that still demands emissions reductions (para. [0020).
Claim 16, Gomila discloses the method of claim 11. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rejection analysis of claim 6, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Per 101 remarks on pages 10-14, the remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant asserts practical application and technical improvement that “effectively reducing the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendation for improving and adapting transportation decisions to meet costs and/or emissions based on goals.” However, the claim and the specification do not reflect the technological detail for the technological improvement.
The computer system and functions recited in the claims are used for the intended desired result (e.g., reducing the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption) and convenience for the abstract idea (i.e., “providing recommendation for improving and adapting transportation decisions to meet costs and/or emissions based on goals”). In numerous court decisions found the use of computer to perform computer process in a convenience (e.g., more efficient, faster, and etc.) has been held not be an “inventive concept” or specific improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the case of the instant invention, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not lie with the improvement of a technology, identifying and resolving an issue that arose from the technology, or that the claimed invention is “deeply rooted in the technology”, but merely demonstrating that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea and merely applying or utilizing generic computing devices performing their generic functions in the technical field of managing transportation via recommendation due to the benefits that computing devices provided (e.g., more efficient, faster, and etc.).
As reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged improvement of “reducing the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption” is not reflected in the claim nor described in detail for how it is actually done, therefore, the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in transmitting, analyzing, and presenting information for a desirable result (i.e., updating and providing an recommending adjustment scenario), which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, the Applicant reflected a benefit or desired result of using the claimed invention would “effectively reduc[e] the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendation for improving and adapting transportation decisions to meet costs and/or emissions based on goals.” The computer system, itself is merely used “applied” for the desired result. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities, other than, by using the additional elements of the computer system, which the desired result can be produced without a doubt or concern to the technological details on how the result is accomplished. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Further page 14-15, the Applicant asserts, “that the pending claims include various features and/or combinations of features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. For example, as discussed above, the pending claims include unique combinations of claim features that allow for the effective reduction of the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendations for improving and adapting transportation decisions to meet cost and/or emissions based goals. Applicants respectfully submit that at least these features and/or combinations of features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field.”
As discussed above, the unique combinations of claim features that allow for the effective reduction of the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendations is not recited in the claim. The Examiner requires the Applicant to specifically indicate the additional element in the claim that would allow for the effective reduction of the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendations. This asserted improvement is merely described in the specification for what is desired result, however, the specification does not provide the technological detail for how such reduction of the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption is accomplished other than the mere conclusion provided in the specification that can be accomplished. If such result-based limitation for result of “effective reduction of the required memory utilization, processor utilization, runtime, and power consumption associated with providing recommendations” then the Office would recognize such result is well-known in the field that it does not require detail for such result to be accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) - “an examiner should determine that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 ( Fed. Cir. 2016) (supporting the position that amplification was well-understood, routine, conventional for purposes of subject matter eligibility by observing that the patentee expressly argued during prosecution of the application that amplification was a technique readily practiced by those skilled in the art to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph); see also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art."); In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424, 161 USPQ 668, 671 (CCPA 1969) ("A specification is directed to those skilled in the art and need not teach or point out in detail that which is well-known in the art."); Exergen Corp., 725 Fed. App’x. 959, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” If the Applicant insist the combination with computer system for the result is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, then a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) will be required.
Thus, for the reasons above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections:
Per 102 and 103 remarks on pages 15-17, the remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments. Although the remarks are deemed moot, the Examiner will still take the opportunity to address the Applicant's remarks in the sprite of expediting compact prosecution.
The Applicant provides conclusory statement: “Gomila makes no reference to, and thus fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, "generat[ing] a plurality of scenarios, by: generating a baseline scenario including a plurality of decisions indicated by the decision data," "performing a plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by making one or more adjustments to the plurality of decisions of the baseline scenario, wherein the adjustments include adjusting at least one of: a cargo carrier choice associated with the one or more vehicles; a fuel source for the one or more vehicles, wherein the fuel source is adjustable between at least one private fuel source and at least one public fuel source; a facility used during the transportation of the cargo; an offset for off offsetting emissions produced by the one or more vehicle; a market-based measure associated with the one or more vehicles or the transportation of the cargo; a transportation equipment fill amount of the one or more vehicles; or a deadhead reduction strategy to be implemented for the one or more vehicles," and "saving the modifications of the baseline scenario as the plurality of scenarios." For at least these reasons, Gomila additionally fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "determin[ing] emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios" and "generat[ing] one or more updates to the transportation based on the plurality of scenarios and the emissions production resulting from the plurality of scenarios," as recited by independent claim 1.” The conclusory statement fails to specifically point out where the examiner has erred in the rejection and how the claimed limitations are interpreted for the distinctions over the specification or claim, other than reciting the prior art fails to teach the limitations of the claims. The provided remarks are found unpersuasive and do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b).
The Examiner asserts in Gomila at least, [0006]: baseline GHG... baseline transport; [0041] and [0052]: “Non-baseline trip search results (in the form of available trip plans) are returned and are displayed to the user along with their comparison to the baseline trip (e.g. SOBT) at block 380. The user selects from one of the available trip plans at block 382.” disclosing the limitation, generating a baseline scenario including a plurality of decisions indicated by the decision data; In para. [0054], “the user will be presented with the available mode or combination of modes of transport to the destination, which are alternative to the baseline trip (e.g. single occupancy vehicle trip, in certain embodiments). Available modes of transport may include, for example, walking, bicycling, bicycle-share, bus, transit rail, commuter rail, intercity rail, ferry, taxi (e.g. hybrid or electric taxi), car-share, ride-share or carpooling, cable car, electric vehicles, park and ride, and the like. In particular embodiments, the modal shift application identifies or recommends the trip option that has some desirable characteristic or combination of characteristics such as low cost, reduced travel time, sustainability, health, and the like. In some embodiments, comparisons are made between the located alternative trip options and a SOBT, in terms of parameters such as cost, time, carbon emissions or environmental impact, and the like” disclosing limitation, performing a plurality of modifications to the baseline scenario by making one or more adjustments to the plurality of decisions of the baseline scenario; and Gomila, para. [0037] and [0054] discloses choosing between different modes of transport like ride-hailing and taxi of hybrid or electric, which is representative of cargo carrier choice; para. [0043] disclosing electricity charged from the grid. Para. [0045], public and private transportation. Para. [0037] discloses facilities like a bus stop or transit rail station, which represents a facility used during the transportation; Para. [0003] discussed the purpose is to generate carbon offset and create a market-based measure of carbon credits disclosing an offset for offsetting emissions and a market-based measure; disclosing the limitation, wherein the adjustments include adjusting at least one of: a cargo carrier choice associated with the one or more vehicles a fuel source for the one or more vehicles, wherein the fuel source is adjustable between at least one private fuel source and at least one public fuel source a facility used during the transportation of the cargo; an offset for off offsetting emissions produced by the one or more vehicle; a market-based measure associated with the one or more vehicles or the transportation of the cargo; a transportation equipment fill amount of the one or more vehicles or a deadhead reduction strategy to be implemented for the one or more vehicles.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Wegner et al. (US 20080040182 A1) is directed to a method for transporting physical objects, wherein at least one physical object is transported from a sending station to a receiving station, wherein the transport occurs through at least one physical router, wherein the physical router executes a decision about further parameters of transport to another physical router or to the receiving station.
Stolaroff JK, Samaras C, O'Neill ER, Lubers A, Mitchell AS, Ceperley D. Energy use and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of drones for commercial package delivery. Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 13;9(1):409. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02411-5.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626