DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
Election/Restrictions
2. The Examiner notes that the Election/Restriction sent on 07.09.2025 was incorrect. Therefore, the Election/Restriction is vacated in view of this new Office Action.
Upon further review, the following action is deemed merited. The Examiner regrets the delayed prosecution of the application.
3. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-15 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
4. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) are acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority/Filing Date
6. Applicant's claim for priority of a 371 of PCT/JP2022/039795 filed on 10.25.2022 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 10.25.2022 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 are directed to a method of managing intermodal
containers, programs, and container management system, and to the method of managing intermodal containers and the like for managing work by the vehicles for the intermodal container.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to a method of managing intermodal containers using a container management system that manages work for intermodal containers. The container management system, comprising the steps of:
emit a first signal in a first vehicle which performs work on the intermodal container;
receive a signal in a second vehicle which performs work on the intermodal container;
a first transmitting step of transmitting the first signal to the second receiver;
a second receiving step of receiving the first signal; and
a second work start step of starting work on the intermodal container in response to the second receiving step.
These limitations collectively describe receiving and collecting information, analyzing the information, and presenting the results of the analysis, which falls within the category or mental processes (concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper). Additionally, the claim is directed to a method of managing intermodal containers using a container management system that manages work for intermodal containers, which is a fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: a container management system, a transmitter, a vehicle, and a receiver. These elements are described at a high level of generality and perform generic functions such as transmitting and receiving signal data. Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, and do not provide a particular machine configuration in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic environment. Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as transmitting and receiving signal data. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. The additional elements: generic “a transmitter”, and generic “a receiver” for transmitting and receiving signal data information are well-understood, routine, and conventional components performing their ordinary functions. The ordered combination of elements: emit a signal wirelessly, receive a wireless signal, receive a wireless signal, and starting work amount to nothing more than conventional data processing and analysis, which does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., intermodal container management method) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-14 define the same that is present in their respective independent claim 1, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-14 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(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.
9. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bollapragada, Pub. No.: US 2017/0267267.
As per claim 1, Bollapragada discloses a method of managing intermodal containers using a container management system that manages work for intermodal containers [see at least the abstract (e.g., an intermodal terminal control system determines characteristics of cargo containers scheduled for receipt into and/or travel out of an intermodal terminal connected with both rail routes and automobile routes, determines characteristics of cargo handling equipment within the intermodal terminal, determines characteristics of rail vehicles scheduled for one or more of entry into or travel out of the intermodal terminal, and determines characteristics of automobile vehicles scheduled for entry into or travel out of the intermodal termina), as illustrated in FIG. 1 and presented below],
FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of an intermodal terminal or railway.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the container management system comprising: a first transmitter to emit a first signal wirelessly installed in a first vehicle which performs work on the intermodal container [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., system 320 may include transceiving circuitry to permit the system 320 to communicate these signals with the container assignment module 304 via one or more wired and/or wireless connections), as illustrated in FIG. 3 and presented below];
FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of an intermodal transportation terminal control system.
PNG
media_image2.png
416
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a second receiver to receive a wireless signal installed in a second vehicle which performs work on the intermodal container [see at least ¶0056 (e.g., system 322 may include transceiving circuitry to permit the system 322 to communicate these signals with the container assignment module 304 via one or more wired and/or wireless connections), as illustrated in FIG. 3 and presented above]; and
the method of managing intermodal container includes: a first transmitting step, by the first transmitter, of transmitting the first signal wirelessly to the second receiver [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., system 320 may include transceiving circuitry to permit the system 320 to communicate these signals with the container assignment module 304 via one or more wired and/or wireless connections), as illustrated in FIG. 3 and presented above];
a second receiving step, by the second receiver, of receiving the first signal [see at least ¶0056 (e.g., system 322 may include transceiving circuitry to permit the system 322 to communicate these signals with the container assignment module 304 via one or more wired and/or wireless connections), as illustrated in FIG. 3 and presented above]; and
a second work start step, by the second vehicle, of starting work on the intermodal container in response to the second receiving step [see at least ¶0034 (e.g., via work order generation module 306 (“WO Generation” in FIG. 3). These modules 302, 304, 306 can operate in a hierarchical manner to create or modify a plan, and as illustrated in FIG. 3 below].
FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of an intermodal transportation terminal control system.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Bollapragada discloses wherein the first transmitter has a unique number different from any one of those of other transmitters on other vehicles; and wherein, in the first transmitting step, the first signal transmitted by the first transmitter includes the unique number [see at least ¶0015 (e.g., a unique identification), and also the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 3, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises a determination unit to determine whether received information is correct or not; and wherein the method of managing intermodal containers further includes a determining step, by the determination unit, of determining whether the unique number is correct or not [see at least ¶0039 (e.g., at 402 (shown in FIG. 4), the car assignment module 302 can obtain information on available containers 204 within the terminal 100 (e.g., containers 204 that are ready to be shipped out of the terminal 100 via one or more vehicles 106, 200) and upcoming arrivals of containers 204. The car assignment module 302 can receive this information from one or more input sources 406. For example, this information can be communicated to the control system 300 (and the car assignment module 302) via an input device 310, such as transceiving equipment and one or more antenna, a keyboard, a microphone, or other device that receives information from another source. In one embodiment, at least some of this information is communicated from or accessed from one or more memory devices 312, 314, 316, 318, such as a computer hard drive, optical disc, etc.), and as illustrated in FIG. 4 below].
PNG
media_image4.png
438
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As per claim 4, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises a workflow storage unit to store a workflow list where a container number of the intermodal container and the unique number; wherein the method of managing the intermodal container further includes a container number obtaining step of obtaining the container number, before the determination step; and wherein, in the determining step, the determination unit determines based on the workflow list [see at least ¶0043 (e.g., At 408, the car assignment module 302 determines routes 114 in the storage routes 110 and/or processing routes 112 on which rail vehicle systems are to travel. The car assignment module 302 can select the routes by determining where various inbound and/or outbound vehicles 200 are to be located for loading and/or unloading cargo containers 204. For example, the car assignment module 302 may select routes 114 in the storage routes 110 on which rail vehicle systems are to be received into the terminal 100 and may select routes 114 in the processing routes 112 on which containers 204 are to be loaded onto and/or unloaded from rail vehicle systems)].
As per claim 5, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises a second transmitter, installed in the second vehicle, to transmit a second signal to the container management system; and wherein the method of intermodal container management further includes a second transmitting step, by the second transmitter, of transmitting the second signal to the container management system [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed in claim 1 as noted above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises a second control unit to control the second vehicle; and wherein, in the second work start step, the second control unit controls the second vehicle to initiate work on the intermodal container, or the second control unit controls a second display unit of the second vehicle to display information of the intermodal container to be worked on [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed in claim 1 as noted above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises: a second GPS receiving unit to receive the position information of the second vehicle in real time; and a position determination unit for determining whether the position of the second vehicle is appropriate or not; and wherein the method of managing intermodal containers further includes a position determining step, by the position determination unit, of determining whether or not the position of the second vehicle is appropriate based on a signal received by the second GPS receiving unit [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., the input devices 326 can include global positioning receivers, keyboards, or other devices that can receive information on current states or locations of the CHE 328 and communicate signals to the system 320. The system 320 may include transceiving circuitry to permit the system 320 to communicate these signals with the container assignment module 304 via one or more wired and/or wireless connections), and as illustrated in FIG. 3 below].
PNG
media_image5.png
418
550
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As per claims 8 and 9, Bollapragada discloses wherein the container management system further comprises: a first base station to receive the position information; and a position correcting unit to correct the position information; and wherein the method of managing intermodal containers further includes a position correcting step, by the position correcting unit, of correcting the position information of the second vehicle using the first base station signal received by the first base station [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed in claim 1 as noted above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 8 and 9 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claims 8 and 9. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claims 10-14, Bollapragada discloses wherein the first base station is located within the premises of a container terminal in which the second vehicle resides; wherein the first transmitter is an onboard ETC unit; and wherein the second receiver is a DSRC antenna; wherein the intermodal container management system further comprises a first control unit to control the first vehicle; and wherein, before the first transmitting step, the method of managing intermodal container includes a first cruise control step, by the first control unit, of controlling the first vehicle to keep a distance greater than a certain distance from a vehicle running in front of the first vehicle and not to overtake the vehicle running in front of the first vehicle [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed in claim 1 as noted above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 10-14 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claims 10-14. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claim 15, which is parallel to claim 1 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claim 1. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claim 1].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
13. 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 Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights