DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 6, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on April 6, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues against the rejections based on the latest amendments made to the independent claims. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a specific technical implementation, emphasizing computing components involved with presenting a load tender to a truck driver and allowing the truck driver to accept or reject the load tender. Such computing components include a remote computing device of the truck driver which has an application with a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface presents selectable accept and reject options to the truck driver.
Applicant states that these are not activities that can be performed by human beings organizing their behavior and that they are specific technological steps carried out by interacting computing systems and a purpose-built application with a defined graphical user interface. Applicant continues that the claims specify a particular technical architecture. Applicant continues that, more specifically, a computing system that transmits a structured load tender to a mobile application, that renders a specific graphical display identifying a container ready for pickup along with interactive accept/reject controls, has no analog in traditional human methods of organizing shipping logistics.
In response, previously in prosecution, Examiner characterized the independent claims as mere abstract idea performed on generic computing components, with the generic computing components not rendering eligibility as amounting to mere instructions to apply an exception according to MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Focusing on the two new paragraphs added to the ends of the independent claims, Examiner views these limitations as simply extending the previous analysis, as mere further abstract-idea limitations performed on generic computing components. Thus, they would not help with eligibility, under the same reasoning as for these claims before these amendments. For example, the abstract-idea portion of these limitations is the outputting of the load tender to the truck driver, with the truck driver being provided with a choice to accept or reject the load tender. These features are part of the abstract idea because they are part of setting up the commercial interaction of the load order, and are also part of managing the interactions of the parties to the shipping system, such parties potentially including people (see the truck driver). Therefore, such features are part of the abstract-idea subject matter grouping of “certain method(s) of organizing human activity.”
The other portions of the new limitations are the computer components, and it is important to note that the computer components in the new limitations are all generic/general-purpose, even in combination. For example, transmitting data content to an application on a remote computing device is a widespread computing feature -- see the everyday use of software on smart phones. Note that the specifics of the data content being communicated here, that are part of the abstract idea (e.g., the load tender data), are not also part of the “additional elements beyond the abstract idea” (the computing components). Displays and graphical user interfaces on mobile devices like smart phones are also so common as to be generic. Furthermore, the ability to select options on such applications is also widespread, even in combination. Therefore, even after these amendments, the independent claims continue to amount to abstract idea performed on mere generic computing components, treated as mere instructions to apply an exception.
Applicant seems to be arguing that a human being cannot perform a function that is recited as being performed using computing components. Of course, this is true, but this, in and of itself, does not render eligibility, as Examiner just discussed above how the MPEP does not render eligibility simply because a judicial exception is performed on generic computing components. As for having a specific technical architecture, Examiner does not notice anything non-generic about the arrangement of the generic components in the amendments; a remote computing system with an application having a graphical user interface that displays selectable options was very common at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date.
As for the argument that the system has no analog in traditional human methods of organizing shipping logistics, this appears to be a reference to the DDR decision. In DDR, eligibility was found for a solution to a problem arising from the technology. In determining if a problem arose from the technology, DDR looked to if there was a similar problem that existed in the field that was independent of the relevant technological environment. Applying that analysis here, the problem being addressed by the last two limitations of the independent claims is presumably inconvenience associated with confirming a driver for a load order; by communicating with the driver device for obtaining driver acceptance of the load order, it would make such procedure more convenient, as this acceptance can be obtained remotely from the driver device that the driver can carry with them.
However, going outside of the technological environment (here, a computing and communications network), we see that the same problem would remain -- there would still be inconvenience associated with getting driver confirmation in an environment without computer networking, a system in which jobs were allocated more manually. Thus, under the DDR analysis, Applicant is not solving a problem “arising from the technology”, and the DDR analysis would not help with eligibility here.
Applicant next argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application via invoking the computing or technological improvement consideration. Examiner disagrees. In order for this consideration to apply for eligibility, there must be meaningful contribution to the alleged improvement from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The additional elements here are the computing components. As Examiner already addressed, the computing components have not been improved, even in combination. The claim is simply using those generic components as they would typically be used, in order to provide for their typical result of facilitating communications. Therefore, there is no technological or computing improvement here.
Applicant also argues based on the Core Wireless decision. In Core Wireless, eligibility was found via a user interface improvement which allowed for an application summary window to be viewed without needing to launch the corresponding applications. This is distinguishable from Applicant’s claims because the improved feature in Core Wireless relates to how the user interface itself works. In contrast, as Examiner discussed above, Applicant’s subject computing components themselves are in their typical forms -- they are not improved; they are simply applied to a particular situation of connecting the truck driver to the load allocating computing system. Thus, Applicant’s claims do not represent a user interface improvement in the sense of Core Wireless, and Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant also argues based on the Data Engine Technologies decision. Examiner believes this decision is distinguishable as well. In Data Engine, eligibility was found for a user interface providing an improvement in navigating around a particular spreadsheet environment, relative to the prior art in the field. In contrast, Examiner does not notice a corresponding user interface improvement in Applicant’s amendments, as they represent typical usage of common user interface elements. Applicant is simply applying such common user interface elements in the environment of a trucking load allocation system. Therefore, this would not be a user interface improvement in the sense of Data Engine, and Examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2B of 101 analysis due to the lack of prior art rejections. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” To further explain, a claim may overcome having prior art rejections due to various features of an abstract idea recited in the claim. However, to render eligibility, Step 2B requires meaningful contribution to its eligibility consideration(s) from the additional elements beyond the judicial exception (the generic computing elements, in the case of Applicant’s independent claims). Generic computing elements generally do not represent, for example, a meaningful contribution to being other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B. Thus, an abstract idea which helps overcome having prior art rejections may still fail to be eligible in a claim which merely performs the abstract idea on generic computing components. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument 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;
- outputting a load tender to a truck driver, outputting information identifying a shipping container ready for pickup;
- providing an accept option and a reject option thereby allowing the truck driver to accept or reject the load tender.
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; outputting via transmitting; an application on a remote computing device; the application displaying on a graphical user interface of the remote computing device; via the graphical user interface of the application; selectable options; 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).
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
Prosecution Insights