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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on September 18, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s recent terminal disclaimer filings, all of the double patenting claim rejections, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has not amended Applicant’s claims. Therefore, the 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, remain in their previous forms. Examiner will now respond to Applicant’s 101 arguments.
Regarding Applicant’s 101 arguments, Examiner begins with a quick review of the current 101 Alice-type claim rejection of representative independent claim 15. Claim 15 is a system claim of a generic/general-purpose computing system which performs two steps. The first step is a data storage step which simply stores the particular data content listed in the claim, each data content related to shipping containers. The second step is tendering a load order to a drayage company, which amounts to basically outputting an offer to transport a load to the drayage company. Examiner determined that the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites subject matter that falls within two of the subject matter groupings for “certain method(s) of organizing human activity”: (1) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): tenders an order for a transportation service; (2) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages behavior and interactions of parties to a shipping transaction, each of which may involve people. The above analysis is taken from the claim rejection, and comprises each of the two subject matter groupings, followed by a corresponding comment about why the claim recites subject matter in that particular grouping.
Regarding (1) above, claim 15 is focused on shipping, which is commonly a commercial activity. Furthermore, it is explicitly commercial in the claim language, as claim 15 concludes with tendering a load order to a drayage company. Orders typically represent commercial activity. Regarding (2) above, claim 15 coordinates movement of shipping containers through a terminal (see claim 15 preamble) by tracking the particular information about the containers and offering the transport of the containers (tendering a load order) to drayage companies. There are many opportunities for humans to be involved in such a scenario: as the sender, as the receiver, as a member of a company operating a vessel stopping at the terminal, as a driver that will ultimately transport the load order, as a non-driver member of the drayage company, and as a member of a company operating the computing system of claim 15. We see that claim 15 is ultimately organizing interactions between such parties, as well as the tasks to be done by at least some of those parties. Therefore, claim 15 also recites a certain method(s) of organizing human activity, because claim 15 recites the subject matter grouping of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”.
When a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea here) is recited in a claim, we look to additional elements beyond the abstract idea (the other elements) to determine if they invoke eligibility via one or more of the 101 considerations, such as a computing or other technological improvement. This can be done by the additional elements themselves or in combination with the rest of the claim (the judicial exception/abstract idea). However, an improvement in the judicial exception by itself is not enough. See MPEP 2106.05(a), which states: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea in claim 15 are as follows: a system; a computing system including memory and one or more processors, and machine-readable instruction stored in the memory that, upon execution by the one or more processors cause the system to carry out operations; storing data/data storage. We can see from how these elements are recited that each of these elements may be merely a generic/general-purpose computing system component. For example, “one or more processors” does not indicate anything special or improved about the processor(s) themselves. MPEP 2106.05(f) (“Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception”) states: “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” This is the main theme of Examiner’s rejection of claim 15: as can be seen by the above discussion, claim 15 amounts to merely performing an abstract idea on generic/general-purpose computing system components, without more, and thus, according to USPTO 101 guidance such as above, the claim is not eligible.
Turning now to Applicant’s specific arguments concerning the 101 rejection of representative independent claim 15, Applicant argues that claim 15 reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. Applicant adds that, more specifically, claim 15 provides an improvement in the coordination of transportation of shipping containers. Applicant then describes how the computing system helps organize data about the containers such that benefits are realized at the terminal in the form of more efficient movement of the containers through the terminal.
The problem with this argument is that improving coordination of movement of shipping containers at a terminal is not a technological improvement because coordinating movement of shipping containers at a terminal here is not a technical field in the sense of the 101 Alice computing/technological improvement consideration. Not every field is a technical field in this sense. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), which states: “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Here, coordinating movement of shipping containers at a terminal is a business and/or organization process, not a technological field in the sense of 101 guidance. Furthermore, as explained above, the coordinating movement of shipping containers can be viewed as part of the abstract idea, and, as also discussed above, an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological or computing improvement for 101. While a computing system is used to, for example, store the data, it is a generic computing system performing its typical generic functions, and thus does not meaningfully contribute to any alleged improvement here.
Therefore, Examiner does not find Applicant’s 101 arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 15-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 15 and 29, Claim(s) 15 and 29 recite(s):
- coordinating movement of shipping containers through a terminal;
- data identifying each of a plurality of shipping containers at the terminal, an owner of cargo associated with each shipping container, a destination for each shipping container, and a location of each shipping container;
- tendering a load order to a drayage company to move a quantity of the plurality of shipping containers.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): tenders an order for a transportation service;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages behavior and interactions of parties to a shipping transaction, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; a computing system including memory and one or more processors, and machine-readable instruction stored in the memory that, upon execution by the one or more processors cause the system to carry out operations; storing data/data storage; a computing device: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 16-28 and 30-42, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
NOTE: The various transportation-related language of the dependent claims do not render eligibility because they amount to (a) mere modifiers of data content of the abstract idea; and/or (b) mere field of use limitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 16 merely adds detail to the abstract idea regarding the timing of receiving data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 15-42 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Nadan, US 20040167825 A1 (system for optimization of drayage services);
b. Deng, US 20190217874 A1 (double-decker rail vehicle);
c. Wip, US 20130015950 A1 (container, system and method for goods transport);
d. Clarke, US 20160335593 A1 (carrier and shipper interfacing and shipment tracking framework for efficient scheduling and transportation of cargo, with security monitoring and efficient payment to carriers);
e. Willms, US 7312702 B1 (expediting release procedure of cargo container at border crossing or at customs entry point by tracking and reporting threats while cargo container is in transit).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628