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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to provisional application 63/454213, filed on March 03, 2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 03/26/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 09/26/2025, amended Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 20 and canceled Claims 5 and 14. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 for Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the amended limitations.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 10-11, Applicant argues “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being an abstract idea without significantly more. Of these, claims 1, 10 and 18 are independent claims. After acknowledging the patent eligibility of claims 1-20 under Step 1, the Examiner asserts that Claim 1 recites an abstract idea as which correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity." [Paper 20250819, Pages 7-9]. Claims 10 and 18 were then rejected under similar grounds. [Paper 20250819, Pages 13]. Amended Claim 1 recites, in part: "A method for facilitating drayage of cargo and shipping containers to and from a shipping port, the method comprising: maintaining, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port ... " Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the Examiner asserts that the claim recites a "judicial exception [that] is not integrated into a practical application." [Paper 20250819, Pages 9]. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the 'directed to' inquiry, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical projects and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon--claims that merely involve an exception should be carefully distinguished.” Examiner does not agree.
First, Applicant appears to have conflated the Step 2A analysis outlined in MPEP 2106.04.II. “Step 2A asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?” MPEP 2106.04.II. “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.” MPEP 2106.04.II.A (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that the “recited” abstract idea has been explicitly identified by quoting portions of the claim language in the rejection section herein, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a), as part of Step 2A Prong One. Examiner has appropriately identified the abstract idea that is “recited,” set forth,” and “described” in the claims per MPEP 2106.04.II.II.A.1. Thus, Step 2A Prong Two is necessary to determine if the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. Thus, Applicant has not overcome the rejection.
On Page 11, Applicant argues “Assuming arguendo, even if it is determined that Claims 1, 10 and/or 18 recite a judicial exception, these claims are each still eligible for patenting under Step 2A Prong Two as there are additional elements such that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 specifies "drayage of cargo and shipping containers to and from a shipping port, the method comprising: maintaining, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port." Applicant respectfully submits that the above limitation, at a minimum, does not merely link the asserted judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation to the method, apparatus, and medium recited in the claims. Since the claims as a whole improve upon previous systems used in the field of drayage of shipping containers, the alleged judicial exception is integrated into the overall scheme and practically applies the exception. Therefore, Claim 1, Claim 10, and Claim 18 each recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and each of these claims should be deemed patent eligible subject matter and no further analysis is required.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that maintaining data related to the commercial operation of a port in “a memory” merely applies the abstract idea (i.e. “a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port”) using generic computer components (i.e. “a memory of a first server”) per MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, under MPEP 2106.05(a), a patent eligible “improvement” to “the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field," also referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem, requires a “technical explanation” in the specification. MPEP 2106.05(a) distinguishes between a “technological” improvement that can provide patent subject matter eligibility, and “an improvement in the abstract idea itself,” which “is not an improvement in technology.” Regarding the instant claims, the specification does not provide a “technical explanation” of an improvement in technology, e.g. a technical solution to a technical problem. Additionally, Examiner notes that improvement of the commercial operations of a port or drayage facility could be considered an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims fail to show a patent eligible improvement in technology, and merely apply an abstract idea on a computer. Thus, Applicant has not overcome the rejection.
On Page 12, Applicant argues “Regarding Step 2B, however, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1, 10, and 18, as a whole, amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Claims 2-4 and 6-9 depend either directly or indirectly from Claim 1 and include all the limitations thereof. Claims 11-13 and 15-17 depend either directly or indirectly from Claim 10 and include all the limitations thereof. Claims 19 and 20 depend from Claim 18 and include all the limitations thereof. As such, these claims should be considered patent eligible subject matter by virtue of these dependencies. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims include limitations that recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For at least these reasons provided above, reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection are accordingly respectfully requested.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the additional elements, individually, and in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept as discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below. Therefore, the rejection of the independent and dependent claims remains.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20, have been fully considered and are moot in light of the additionally cited art of US-20170249582-A1 (“Mademann”). Examiner notes that Mademann was made part of the record in the Conclusion Section of the previous office action. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 herein.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “wherein the cost variable is based on one or both of historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location and historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to any location” (Emphasis added) at the eight paragraph of Claim 1. This limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (¶16 shows “As used herein, the term “substantially” is synonymous with terms such as “nearly,” “very nearly,” “about,” “approximately,” “around,” “bordering on,” “close to,” “essentially,” “in the neighborhood of,” “in the vicinity of,” etc., and such terms may be used interchangeably as appearing in the specification and claims. The term “proximate” is synonymous with terms such as “nearby,” “close,” “adjacent,” “neighboring,” “immediate,” “adjoining,” etc., and such terms may be used interchangeably as appearing in the specification and claims. The term “approximately” is intended to mean values within ten percent of the specified value.” (Emphasis added).). Therefore, the limitation of Claim 1 is interpreted as limiting the “locations” to being “proximate” (i.e. having proximity) to “the second location.” Put another way, the limitation of Claim 1 is analogous to “. . . historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations within a distance [(i.e. having proximity)] to the second location . . .”
Claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-20 either recite a similar use of the word “near,” or depend on a claim that uses the word “near” in a similar manner. Claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are interpreted consistently with the limitation of Claim 1 discussed above.
Claim 1 recites “maintaining, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port” at the second paragraph of Claim 1.
Specification ¶25 “For example, first server 102 may have maintain information regarding (i) the number of cargo containers currently located at the shipping port, (ii) the number cargo containers that have been received by the shipping port in the past few days, weeks, months, or year, (iii) the number of cargo containers that have been removed from the shipping port in the past few days, weeks, months, or year, (iv) the number of trucks that have entered and exited the shipping port with cargo containers, (v) the number empty and the number of full cargo containers, (vi) the layout of the shipping port including the location of the roads, storage yards, cargo moving equipment, (vii) the size and number of docks for vessels or boats, (viii) the schedule of past and future arrivals of vessels or boats, their size and how many cargo containers they contain, and (ix) the schedule of past and future arrivals of cargo containers.” (Emphasis added).
Specification ¶26 states “Embodiments provide that the harbor entrance 202 are operable to track when a given truck 212 enters or exits the harbor entrance 202. The number of trucks 212 that enter and exit the harbor entrance 202, the cargo that they carry, and whether they are removing cargo containers or delivering cargo containers to the shipping port 200 [(i.e. “a container status for each vehicle”)] is maintained at the command center 214 or a first server 102 that may or may not be located at the shipping port 200.” (Emphasis added).
The limitation of Claim 1 includes “maintaining” (present participle, i.e. indicating ongoing action) “a number of vehicles entering [(present participle, i.e. indicating ongoing action)] and exiting [(present participle, i.e. indicating ongoing action)] the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle.” The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (¶¶25-26) of this limitation does not limit the frequency of the ongoing action of “maintaining” to the same frequency of the ongoing action of “entering and exiting” (i.e. the duration of the present of the present participle of “maintaining” is not necessarily the same as the duration of the present of the present particles of “entering and exiting”). In other words, despite the use of the present participles of “maintaining,” “entering,” and “exiting,” the scope of this limitation would also include “maintaining, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles that have entered and exited the shipping port,” which is consistent with Specification ¶¶25-26.
Claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-20 either recite a similar use of the words “maintaining” and “entering and exiting,” or depend on a claim that uses the words “maintaining” and “entering and exiting” in a similar manner. Claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are interpreted consistently with the limitation of Claim 1 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “maintaining, in a memory of a first server, . . .” in the second paragraph, “transmitting, by [[a]] the processor to a first server, . . .” in the fourth paragraph, and “receiving, by the processor from the first server, . . .” in the fifth paragraph. Thus, Claim 1 introduces “a first server” twice, and then references “the first server” in a later limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes herein, Claim 1 will be examined as being compliant with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), i.e. the fourth paragraph will be interpreted as being analogous to “transmitting, by [[a]] the processor to the first server, . . .”
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected under similar justification (i.e. based on dependency).
Examiner notes that the use of “a memory of a first server” and “a memory associated with the processor” in independent Claims 1 and 18, and “a memory storing computer program instructions . . . wherein the memory and the computer program instructions . . . are configured to cause the apparatus to,” “a memory of a first server,” and “a memory associated with the processor” in independent Claim 10, does not violate 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Although “a memory” is introduced multiple times in each claim, the scope of the limitation remains definite because the claims do not recite a subsequent “the memory” that lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claims 10-13 and 15-17 recite an apparatus (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claims 18-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“maintaining, . . . , a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port;”
“transmitting, . . . , a request for data regarding moving an item from a first location to a second location;
transmitting, . . . , a request for a first historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location;
receiving, . . . , the first historical data;
retrieving, . . . , a second historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location;
determining, . . . , a time variable associated with obtaining an item from [[a]] the first location and moving the item from the first location to [[a]] the second location;
determining, . . . , a cost variable associated with one of a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations and moving the item from the first location to the second location;
“wherein the cost variable is based on one or both of historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location and historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to any location;”
determining, . . . , a supply variable associated with an availability of the one of the plurality of vehicles located at the plurality of locations to obtain the item from the first location and moving the item from the first location to the second location; and
determining, . . . , a rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles based on the time variable, the cost variable, and the supply variable,
wherein the time variable is further associated with movement of the one of the plurality of vehicles to a respective one or more locations of the plurality of locations required to complete moving of the item from the first location to the second location,
wherein the plurality of locations are different from the first location and the second location; and
transmitting, . . . the rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) maintaining certain information including numbers, (2) requesting and receiving historical data related to moving an item, (3) determining variables and values (i.e. time, cost, supply, and rate) associated with certain information based on certain information, and (4) transmitting rate associated with each vehicle, all of which are mathematical calculations (i.e. maintaining numbers of vehicles and containers and determining variables), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. maintaining, receiving, and transmitting certain information to determine a rate associated with a vehicle transporting an item is at least “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “user equipment,” “processor,” “first server,” “memory”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “user equipment,”
(ii) “processor,”
(iii) “first server,” and
(iv) “memory.”
The additional elements of (i) “user equipment” (Fig. 1 and ¶22 shows “user equipments (UEs) 106, 108, 110.” ¶22 shows “Embodiments of a user equipment include any electronic device, mobile phone, smartphone, computer, and/or wearable device.”), (ii) “processor” (¶22 and ¶24 shows “processor”), (iii) “first server” (Fig. 1, ¶22, and ¶24 shows “first server 102.”), and (iv) “memory” (¶22 and ¶24 shows “memory”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1, ¶22, and ¶24 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) “user equipment,” (ii) “processor,” (iii) “first server,” and (iv) “memory,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1, ¶22, and ¶24 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1, ¶22, and ¶24 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) “user equipment,” (ii) “processor,” (iii) “first server,” and (iv) “memory,” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1, ¶22, and ¶24 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-9 recite the abstract idea of:
“. . . wherein the determining of the time variable is based on at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Claim 2);
“. . . obtaining . . . at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Claim 3);
“. . . wherein the determining of the cost variable is based on at least one of (i) a cost of fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a predicted cost of future fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (iii) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (iv) an amount of fuel associated with one the plurality of vehicles moving the item from the first location to the second location, (v) an amount of fuel associated with one of the plurality of vehicles moving from a third location to the first location, and (vi)Claim 4);
“wherein the supply variable is based on at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles, and (v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” (Claim 6);
“. . . obtaining . . . at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles, and (v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” (Claim 7);
“. . . determining, . . . , at least one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location; and transmitting, . . . , information associated with which one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location” (Claim 8); and
“. . . determining, . . . , a capacity for the plurality of vehicles based on at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles; and transmitting, by the processor, the capacity” (Claim 9).
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-9, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-4 and 6-9 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations of (1) determining values and variables based on certain information, (2) obtaining and transmitting certain information, (3) determining a vehicle that is most cost-effective to transport an item, and (4) determining a capacity of vehicle, merely limit the abstract idea. The further elements of Claims 2-4 and 6-9 (i.e. “processor” of Claims 3 and 7-9, “first server” of Claim 7, and “plurality of servers” of Claims 3 and 7) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-4 and 6-9 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-4 and 6-9, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-4 and 6-9 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-4 and 6-9 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-4 and 6-9 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-13 and 15-17 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 1-4 and 6-8. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 recite a method embodied by the elements and limitations of 10-13 and 15-17. Therefore, Claims 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Claims 18-20 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 10-11 and 13. Therefore, Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200126036-A1 (“Chou”) in view of US-20170148313-A1 (“Zografos”) and US-20170249582-A1 (“Mademann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chou discloses a “A method for facilitating drayage of cargo and shipping containers to and from a shipping port, the method comprising:” (Fig. 1-2, ¶¶7-16, and ¶37 shows a method for facilitating drayage services for shipping containers.)
“maintaining, in a memory of a first server, . . . , a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶53 shows “In STEP 2200, the shipping website creates a shipping service offer record which comprises all of the plurality of shipping service parameters in the central database [(i.e. memory of a first server)]. This can be an actual separate record or a “pointer,” temporary list, or other means of keeping track of the shipping service parameters which allows the shipping container transport service access system to communicate and record the shipping service parameters in later steps.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 1 shows that the “Central Database” is “Update[d]” (i.e. maintaining). ¶48 shows the “shipping service parameters” include “date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point [(i.e. shipping port)], et cetera.” ¶50 shows “The shipping service parameters will include the requirements related to an empty shipping container to be filled with goods, a filled shipping container which is to be delivered, and/or an emptied shipping container which needs to be returned to a bulk carrier or other owner.” Therefore, the “shipping service parameters” of Chou teaches “a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port.” See also ¶49 and ¶¶69-72 further discussing the tracking of empty and full containers and Fig. 6 showing a display of each shipping container’s identity, shipping port (i.e. location) status (i.e. milestone), and whether the container is empty or full (i.e. import/export per ¶49). However, Chou does not explicitly disclose maintaining the number of vehicles entering and exiting a shipping port.);
“transmitting, by a user equipment to a processor, a request for data regarding moving an item from a first location to a second location” (Fig. 9 and ¶105 shows “Computer 90 comprises CPU 92, Random Access Memory 95, and Hard Drive 94. . . Remote Computer 93 can be used by SSP, SSU, or both to access Computer 90 and send and receive information related to executing the method.” Fig. 2 and ¶48 shows “In STEP 2000, a shipping service user type user accesses the shipping website and creates a shipping service inquiry. The SSU can have an existing associated user record such as would be created in first submethod 10, or can create one during the creation of the shipping service inquiry which would require STEPS 1300 and 1400 to be performed by or for the SSU. The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added).);
. . . ;
“determining, by the processor, a time variable associated with obtaining an item from [[a]] the first location and moving the item from the first location to [[a]] the second location” (Fig. 2 and ¶52 shows “In STEP 2100, the shipping website evaluates the shipping service inquiry to select a prospective drayage provider user whose user data indicates compatibility with the shipping service parameters, including their current drayage capability availability.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” (Emphasis added). ¶43 shows “For a drayage provider, this would include the various sizes and types of shipping containers the drayage provider has the appropriate power unit(s) to transport, the type and amount of insurance the drayage provider carries, certifications of the drayage provider's drivers, et cetera.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” The determination of compliance with the requested “date(s) of shipment” teaches the recited “time variable.” See also, Fig. 2-3, ¶¶59-60, ¶69, and ¶¶73-76 showing scheduling of delivery.);
“determining, by the processor, a cost variable associated with one of a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery.);
. . .
“determining, by the processor, a supply variable associated with an availability of the one of the plurality of vehicles located at the plurality of locations to obtain the item from the first location and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (¶¶46-47 shows that drayage user data includes availability data. ¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.”); and
“determining, by the processor, a rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles based on the time variable, the cost variable, and the supply variable” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “FIGS. 10 and 11 show a seventh optional improvement to the invention, the Preferred Cost Parameters interface. An SSU who is using the method of the invention can further break down their cost preferences and limits by entering limits and/or preferences regarding various components of the total cost of shipping a load. Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Thus, Chou teaches a rate associated with each of the vehicles is based on the cost variable. Examiner notes that ¶106 states “the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within [the price constraints].” Thus, the rates are also determined based on the time variable and supply variable (i.e. vehicles that are available at the needed time).),
“wherein the time variable is further associated with movement of the one of the plurality of vehicles to a respective one or more locations of the plurality of locations required to complete moving of the item from the first location to the second location, wherein the plurality of locations are different from the first location and the second location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of locations different from the first location and second location) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.”); and
“transmitting, by the processor, to the user equipment the rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles” (Fig. 3, 12, and ¶107 shows “FIG. 12 shows an eighth optional improvement to the method of the invention, the Default Buy Box. Output Screen 120 shows the result of the search of STEP 3700. (See FIG. 3.). . . The other potential SSP are shown in Output List Box 124. It is neither preferred nor required to show both a default SSP and alternative SSP on the same output list, page or screen. Fig. 12 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 teaches the rate of each vehicle transmitted to the requester.).
Chou does not explicitly teach, but Zografos teaches:
“maintaining, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, . . .” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶39 shows “The TCP provides users with a common single platform to communicate, dispatch, track, and trace the drayage movement of cargo shipping containers from point-to-point origin to destination, providing in-transit visibility throughout the ground transport supply chain process.” ¶57 shows “The features and functionality of the wait time tracking process may be included in a more feature-rich process and application which provides functionality for implementation of: . . . real-time updates of driver and truck qualifications; tracking, reporting and retaining history record of driver wait times for any container within the system.” ¶59 shows “The TCP provides the Port/Board with unrestricted access to pull the raw data and information from the system database collected by the application. The TCP portal provides a flexible, configurable role-based access control model to download collected data and information to a PDF file for printing and to download selected data and information to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format for all pages and data.” Thus, Zografos teaches that the tracked data is maintained (i.e. real-time updates in ¶57) in a memory (i.e. system database in ¶59). ¶62, ¶67, ¶70-74, and Fig. 15a-15b shows the GPS location of the tracked, and entry and exit from a geofence representative of a shipping port is determined. Specifically, ¶62 shows “The GPS data can be viewed in real time on the web portal by users with designated roles. This information is viewable on an integrated map or in a tabular format. The data can be filtered and grouped by configurable geo-fences within the web portal, allowing for actionable events, such as tracking durations and speeds of users through bounded areas [(i.e. entering and exiting port)].” Fig. 15c and ¶75 shows a geofence report including the time each driver enters and exits a certain port, teaching that the system database includes “a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port.” See also ¶80 showing “And in FIG. 17c , the TCP (DrayLink) supports the population of a drayage truck registry (DTR) at individual ports.” Fig. 13a-13c and ¶67 shows “specific trip event tracking and record” includes “[d]etails such as date, time of day start and finish, as well as container information.” Recording the time of an “event” associated with a certain container teaches “container status.” See also ¶82, Fig. 2a-2d, and Fig. 14b showing that status of each container as “empty” or “full” is tracked.);
“transmitting, by a processor to a first server, a request for a first historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).);
“receiving, by the processor from the first server, the first historical data” (¶51 shows “Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” (Emphasis added). Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information.); and
“retrieving, by the processor, from a memory associated with the processor, a second historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zografos with Chou because Chou ¶75 shows “This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route [(i.e. historical data associated with moving items from the first location)] by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (emphasis added) and Zografos teaches use of historical data to better estimate wait times at each port (¶4, ¶13, ¶55 and ¶57). Thus, combining Zografos with Chou furthers the interest taught in Zografos, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Chou and Zografos does not explicitly teach, but Mademann teaches “wherein the cost variable is based on one or both of historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location and historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to any location” (¶33 shows “A segment cost may be dependent on several sources of cost including: cost-per-mile rates, length of the segment, region, direction of travel, and other fees.” ¶97 shows “Based on historical container movement by third party vendors (motor-carriers) over a specified time frame, optimizer 10 may determine a database containing base truck rates categorized by region. Historic cost data may be derived by average market cost within each region [(i.e. “moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location” and “moving past items from the first location to any location”)]. Flat rates may be determined for regions for some distance ranges (e.g., 0-10 miles, 100-200 miles). For other distance ranges, a rate calculation method may be specified instead of a flat rate. For example, if historical costs for a particular distance range vary widely, the calculation method may be average cost per mile rate. Alternatively or additionally, over a predetermined distance threshold, the calculation method may switch from flat rate to a calculation method. Flat rates may be rounded up to nearest ten-dollar increment or other increment. Rounded flat rates are beneficial so that the provided display of segment costs may be easily identified.” See also ¶¶41-45 showing the data stored by the “optimizer 10” including costs and paths and regional identifier, and ¶¶61-73 showing “door” delivery costs associated with a specific port (i.e. first location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mademann with Chou and Zografos because Chou ¶106 shows use of a variety of variables including per mile to determine the total cost and Mademann ¶¶96-99 shows that use of historical data can better optimize the route and resulting price. Thus, combining Mademann with Chou and Zografos furthers the interest taught in Mademann, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the determining of the time variable is based on at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (Emphasis added). ¶78 shows that parameters includes “extra travel time required to pick up and drop off, rate of pay for the load, and shipping timeframe requirements.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location” (i.e. travel distance to pickup). See also ¶74 and ¶76 discussing proximity of “available power unit(s).”).
Regarding Claim 3, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “the processor obtaining from a plurality of servers at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (Emphasis added). ¶78 shows that parameters includes “extra travel time required to pick up and drop off, rate of pay for the load, and shipping timeframe requirements.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location” (i.e. travel distance to pickup). See also ¶74 and ¶76 discussing proximity of “available power unit(s).”).
Regarding Claim 4, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “(i) a cost of fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a predicted cost of future fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (iii) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (iv) an amount of fuel associated with one the plurality of vehicles moving the item from the first location to the second location, (v) an amount of fuel associated with one of the plurality of vehicles moving from a third location to the first location, and (vi)
Regarding Claim 6, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the supply variable is based on at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles, and (v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” (¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶74 shows “In STEP 3400 the proximity of available power unit(s) to transport the shipping container is evaluated.” See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles” and “(iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles.” Fig. 3 and ¶57 shows “If the prospective drayage provider does not accept the shipping service offer record [in Step 2400], the interactive communication session terminates and the method returns to STEP 2100 so the SSU can select an alternate prospective drayage provider.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” because the second iteration of Step 2100 (after the first offer was rejected) teaches a “second plurality of vehicles.).
Regarding Claim 7, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “the processor obtaining from [[a]] the first server closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶74 shows “In STEP 3400 the proximity of available power unit(s) to transport the shipping container is evaluated.” See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles” and “(iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles.” Fig. 3 and ¶57 shows “If the prospective drayage provider does not accept the shipping service offer record [in Step 2400], the interactive communication session terminates and the method returns to STEP 2100 so the SSU can select an alternate prospective drayage provider.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” because the second iteration of Step 2100 (after the first offer was rejected) teaches a “second plurality of vehicles.).
Regarding Claim 8, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “determining, by the processor, at least one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location; and transmitting, by the processor, information associated with which one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location” (¶51 shows “It is optional to allow the SSU to prioritize the evaluation of the shipping service inquiry according to specific parameters. For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service [(i.e. most cost-effective vehicle)], or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 12 and ¶107 shows “FIG. 12 shows an eighth optional improvement to the method of the invention, the Default Buy Box. Output Screen 120 shows the result of the search of STEP 3700. (See FIG. 3.) Default Buy Box 122 shows a “default” SSP which is suggested for use by the SSU user. It has a “Book” button which will automatically book the shipment to that SSP. The default SSP is chosen by selecting the SSP on the available transport list which has the best combination of activity level, customer service ratings, and shipping rate, according to an arbitrary algorithm selected by the administrator of the method. (And/Or separately expressed general preferences from that SSU.) The other potential SSP are shown in Output List Box 124. It is neither preferred nor required to show both a default SSP and alternative SSP on the same output list, page or screen. It is required that if this is not done, that the SSU has the option to see the alternative SSP if they do not wish to book the default SSP.” (Emphasis added). Because the most cost effective rate is displayed to the requester, it is transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 9, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “determining, by the processor, a capacity for the plurality of vehicles based on at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles; and transmitting, by the processor, the capacity” (Fig. 1 and ¶43 shows “In STEP 1400, the user inputs the user data associated with the user data fields associated with the user's data type into the central database via the shipping website. For a drayage provider, this would include the various sizes and types of shipping containers the drayage provider has the appropriate power unit(s) to transport, the type and amount of insurance the drayage provider carries, certifications of the drayage provider's drivers, et cetera.” Fig. 3 and ¶73 shows “In STEP 3300 the power units which are available to transport the shipping container are evaluated and a priority of power unit(s) based on the requirements associated with the shipping container's physical configuration is assigned. The priority is set as one or more of the following: power unit(s) which meets the minimum necessary parameters (weight, length, height) to transport the shipping container, and power unit(s) which exceed the minimum necessary parameters to transport the shipping container.” Therefore, Chou teaches capacity based on “(iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Chou discloses “An apparatus for facilitating drayage of cargo and shipping containers to and from a shipping port, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer program instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the memory and the computer program instructions and the processor are configured to cause the apparatus” (Fig. 9 and ¶105 shows “Computer 90 comprises CPU 92, Random Access Memory 95, and Hard Drive 94. Code embodying the steps of the method is stored on Hard Drive 94, loaded into RAM 95, and executed by CPU 92. Output from the method can be sent to Display 96 and/or Printer 97. Remote Computer 93 can be used by SSP, SSU, or both to access Computer 90 and send and receive information related to executing the method.” Fig. 1-2, ¶¶7-16, and ¶37 shows a method for facilitating drayage services for shipping containers.) to at least:
“maintain, in a memory of a first server, . . . , a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶53 shows “In STEP 2200, the shipping website creates a shipping service offer record which comprises all of the plurality of shipping service parameters in the central database [(i.e. memory of a first server)]. This can be an actual separate record or a “pointer,” temporary list, or other means of keeping track of the shipping service parameters which allows the shipping container transport service access system to communicate and record the shipping service parameters in later steps.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 1 shows that the “Central Database” is “Update[d]” (i.e. maintaining). ¶48 shows the “shipping service parameters” include “date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point [(i.e. shipping port)], et cetera.” ¶50 shows “The shipping service parameters will include the requirements related to an empty shipping container to be filled with goods, a filled shipping container which is to be delivered, and/or an emptied shipping container which needs to be returned to a bulk carrier or other owner.” Therefore, the “shipping service parameters” of Chou teaches “a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port.” See also ¶49 and ¶¶69-72 further discussing the tracking of empty and full containers and Fig. 6 showing a display of each shipping container’s identity, shipping port (i.e. location) status (i.e. milestone), and whether the container is empty or full (i.e. import/export per ¶49). However, Chou does not explicitly disclose maintaining the number of vehicles entering and exiting a shipping port.);
“receive from a user equipment a request for data regarding moving an item from a first location to a second location” (Fig. 2 and ¶48 shows “In STEP 2000, a shipping service user type user accesses the shipping website and creates a shipping service inquiry. The SSU can have an existing associated user record such as would be created in first submethod 10, or can create one during the creation of the shipping service inquiry which would require STEPS 1300 and 1400 to be performed by or for the SSU. The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added).);
. . . ;
“determine a time variable associated with moving an item from a first location to a second location” (Fig. 2 and ¶52 shows “In STEP 2100, the shipping website evaluates the shipping service inquiry to select a prospective drayage provider user whose user data indicates compatibility with the shipping service parameters, including their current drayage capability availability.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” (Emphasis added). ¶43 shows “For a drayage provider, this would include the various sizes and types of shipping containers the drayage provider has the appropriate power unit(s) to transport, the type and amount of insurance the drayage provider carries, certifications of the drayage provider's drivers, et cetera.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” The determination of compliance with the requested “date(s) of shipment” teaches the recited “time variable.” See also, Fig. 2-3, ¶¶59-60, ¶69, and ¶¶73-76 showing scheduling of delivery.);
. . . ;
“determine a cost variable associated with one of a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery.);
“determine a supply variable associated with an availability of the one of the plurality of vehicles located at the plurality of locations to obtain the item from the first location and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (¶¶46-47 shows that drayage user data includes availability data. ¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.”);
“determine a rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles based on the time variable, the cost variable, and the supply variable” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “FIGS. 10 and 11 show a seventh optional improvement to the invention, the Preferred Cost Parameters interface. An SSU who is using the method of the invention can further break down their cost preferences and limits by entering limits and/or preferences regarding various components of the total cost of shipping a load. Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Thus, Chou teaches a rate associated with each of the vehicles is based on the cost variable. Examiner notes that ¶106 states “the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within [the price constraints].” Thus, the rates are also determined based on the time variable and supply variable (i.e. vehicles that are available at the needed time).),
“wherein the time variable is further associated with movement of the one of the plurality of vehicles to a plurality of locations required to complete moving of the item from the first location to the second location, wherein the plurality of locations are different from the first location and the second location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of locations different from the first location and second location) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.”); and
“transmit to the user equipment the rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles” (Fig. 3, 12, and ¶107 shows “FIG. 12 shows an eighth optional improvement to the method of the invention, the Default Buy Box. Output Screen 120 shows the result of the search of STEP 3700. (See FIG. 3.). . . The other potential SSP are shown in Output List Box 124. It is neither preferred nor required to show both a default SSP and alternative SSP on the same output list, page or screen. Fig. 12 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 teaches the rate of each vehicle transmitted to the requester.).
Chou does not explicitly teach, but Zografos teaches:
“maintain, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, . . .” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶39 shows “The TCP provides users with a common single platform to communicate, dispatch, track, and trace the drayage movement of cargo shipping containers from point-to-point origin to destination, providing in-transit visibility throughout the ground transport supply chain process.” ¶57 shows “The features and functionality of the wait time tracking process may be included in a more feature-rich process and application which provides functionality for implementation of: . . . real-time updates of driver and truck qualifications; tracking, reporting and retaining history record of driver wait times for any container within the system.” ¶59 shows “The TCP provides the Port/Board with unrestricted access to pull the raw data and information from the system database collected by the application. The TCP portal provides a flexible, configurable role-based access control model to download collected data and information to a PDF file for printing and to download selected data and information to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format for all pages and data.” Thus, Zografos teaches that the tracked data is maintained (i.e. real-time updates in ¶57) in a memory (i.e. system database in ¶59). ¶62, ¶67, ¶70-74, and Fig. 15a-15b shows the GPS location of the tracked, and entry and exit from a geofence representative of a shipping port is determined. Specifically, ¶62 shows “The GPS data can be viewed in real time on the web portal by users with designated roles. This information is viewable on an integrated map or in a tabular format. The data can be filtered and grouped by configurable geo-fences within the web portal, allowing for actionable events, such as tracking durations and speeds of users through bounded areas [(i.e. entering and exiting port)].” Fig. 15c and ¶75 shows a geofence report including the time each driver enters and exits a certain port, teaching that the system database includes “a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port.” See also ¶80 showing “And in FIG. 17c , the TCP (DrayLink) supports the population of a drayage truck registry (DTR) at individual ports.” Fig. 13a-13c and ¶67 shows “specific trip event tracking and record” includes “[d]etails such as date, time of day start and finish, as well as container information.” Recording the time of an “event” associated with a certain container teaches “container status.” See also ¶82, Fig. 2a-2d, and Fig. 14b showing that status of each container as “empty” or “full” is tracked.);
“receive from [[a]] the first server a first historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).) and
“retrieve from a memory associated with the processor, a second historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zografos with Chou because Chou ¶75 shows “This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route [(i.e. historical data associated with moving items from the first location)] by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (emphasis added) and Zografos teaches use of historical data to better estimate wait times at each port (¶4, ¶13, ¶55 and ¶57). Thus, combining Zografos with Chou furthers the interest taught in Zografos, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Chou and Zografos does not explicitly teach, but Mademann teaches “wherein the cost variable is based on one or both of historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location and historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to any location” (¶33 shows “A segment cost may be dependent on several sources of cost including: cost-per-mile rates, length of the segment, region, direction of travel, and other fees.” ¶97 shows “Based on historical container movement by third party vendors (motor-carriers) over a specified time frame, optimizer 10 may determine a database containing base truck rates categorized by region. Historic cost data may be derived by average market cost within each region [(i.e. “moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location” and “moving past items from the first location to any location”)]. Flat rates may be determined for regions for some distance ranges (e.g., 0-10 miles, 100-200 miles). For other distance ranges, a rate calculation method may be specified instead of a flat rate. For example, if historical costs for a particular distance range vary widely, the calculation method may be average cost per mile rate. Alternatively or additionally, over a predetermined distance threshold, the calculation method may switch from flat rate to a calculation method. Flat rates may be rounded up to nearest ten-dollar increment or other increment. Rounded flat rates are beneficial so that the provided display of segment costs may be easily identified.” See also ¶¶41-45 showing the data stored by the “optimizer 10” including costs and paths and regional identifier, and ¶¶61-73 showing “door” delivery costs associated with a specific port (i.e. first location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mademann with Chou and Zografos because Chou ¶106 shows use of a variety of variables including per mile to determine the total cost and Mademann ¶¶96-99 shows that use of historical data can better optimize the route and resulting price. Thus, combining Mademann with Chou and Zografos furthers the interest taught in Mademann, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the determining of the time variable is based on at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (Emphasis added). ¶78 shows that parameters includes “extra travel time required to pick up and drop off, rate of pay for the load, and shipping timeframe requirements.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location” (i.e. travel distance to pickup). See also ¶74 and ¶76 discussing proximity of “available power unit(s).”).
Regarding Claim 12, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain from a plurality of servers at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (Emphasis added). ¶78 shows that parameters includes “extra travel time required to pick up and drop off, rate of pay for the load, and shipping timeframe requirements.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location” (i.e. travel distance to pickup). See also ¶74 and ¶76 discussing proximity of “available power unit(s).”).
Regarding Claim 13, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the determining of the cost variable is based on at least one of (i) a cost of fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a predicted cost of future fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (iii) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (iv) an amount of fuel associated with one the plurality of vehicles moving the item from the first location to the second location, (v) an amount of fuel associated with one of the plurality of vehicles moving from the third location to the first location, , and (vi)
Regarding Claim 15, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the supply variable is based on at least one of (i) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles, and (v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” (¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶74 shows “In STEP 3400 the proximity of available power unit(s) to transport the shipping container is evaluated.” See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles” and “(iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles.” Fig. 3 and ¶57 shows “If the prospective drayage provider does not accept the shipping service offer record [in Step 2400], the interactive communication session terminates and the method returns to STEP 2100 so the SSU can select an alternate prospective drayage provider.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” because the second iteration of Step 2100 (after the first offer was rejected) teaches a “second plurality of vehicles.).
Regarding Claim 16, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to obtain from [[a]] the first servervehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles, (iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles, and (v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” (¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶74 shows “In STEP 3400 the proximity of available power unit(s) to transport the shipping container is evaluated.” See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) a location of each one of the plurality of vehicles” and “(iii) an availability of each one of the plurality of vehicles.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(iv) a type of moving equipment associated with the plurality of vehicles.” Fig. 3 and ¶57 shows “If the prospective drayage provider does not accept the shipping service offer record [in Step 2400], the interactive communication session terminates and the method returns to STEP 2100 so the SSU can select an alternate prospective drayage provider.” Therefore, Chou teaches “(v) an availability of a second plurality of vehicles” because the second iteration of Step 2100 (after the first offer was rejected) teaches a “second plurality of vehicles.).
Regarding Claim 17, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The apparatus of claim 10,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to: determine at least one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location; and transmit information associated with which one of the plurality of vehicles is a most cost-effective vehicle for moving the item from the first location to the second location” (¶51 shows “It is optional to allow the SSU to prioritize the evaluation of the shipping service inquiry according to specific parameters. For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service [(i.e. most cost-effective vehicle)], or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 12 and ¶107 shows “FIG. 12 shows an eighth optional improvement to the method of the invention, the Default Buy Box. Output Screen 120 shows the result of the search of STEP 3700. (See FIG. 3.) Default Buy Box 122 shows a “default” SSP which is suggested for use by the SSU user. It has a “Book” button which will automatically book the shipment to that SSP. The default SSP is chosen by selecting the SSP on the available transport list which has the best combination of activity level, customer service ratings, and shipping rate, according to an arbitrary algorithm selected by the administrator of the method. (And/Or separately expressed general preferences from that SSU.) The other potential SSP are shown in Output List Box 124. It is neither preferred nor required to show both a default SSP and alternative SSP on the same output list, page or screen. It is required that if this is not done, that the SSU has the option to see the alternative SSP if they do not wish to book the default SSP.” (Emphasis added). Because the most cost effective rate is displayed to the requester, it is transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 18, Chou discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to facilitate drayage of cargo and shipping containers to and from a shipping port, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer program instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor” (Fig. 9 and ¶105 shows “Computer 90 comprises CPU 92, Random Access Memory 95, and Hard Drive 94. Code embodying the steps of the method is stored on Hard Drive 94, loaded into RAM 95, and executed by CPU 92. Output from the method can be sent to Display 96 and/or Printer 97. Remote Computer 93 can be used by SSP, SSU, or both to access Computer 90 and send and receive information related to executing the method.” Fig. 1-2, ¶¶7-16, and ¶37 shows a method for facilitating drayage services for shipping containers.) to at least:
“maintain, in a memory of a first server, . . . , a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶53 shows “In STEP 2200, the shipping website creates a shipping service offer record which comprises all of the plurality of shipping service parameters in the central database [(i.e. memory of a first server)]. This can be an actual separate record or a “pointer,” temporary list, or other means of keeping track of the shipping service parameters which allows the shipping container transport service access system to communicate and record the shipping service parameters in later steps.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 1 shows that the “Central Database” is “Update[d]” (i.e. maintaining). ¶48 shows the “shipping service parameters” include “date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point [(i.e. shipping port)], et cetera.” ¶50 shows “The shipping service parameters will include the requirements related to an empty shipping container to be filled with goods, a filled shipping container which is to be delivered, and/or an emptied shipping container which needs to be returned to a bulk carrier or other owner.” Therefore, the “shipping service parameters” of Chou teaches “a number of empty shipping containers at the shipping port, and a number of full containers at the shipping port.” See also ¶49 and ¶¶69-72 further discussing the tracking of empty and full containers and Fig. 6 showing a display of each shipping container’s identity, shipping port (i.e. location) status (i.e. milestone), and whether the container is empty or full (i.e. import/export per ¶49). However, Chou does not explicitly disclose maintaining the number of vehicles entering and exiting a shipping port.);
“receive from a user equipment a request for data regarding moving an item from a first location to a second location” (Fig. 2 and ¶48 shows “In STEP 2000, a shipping service user type user accesses the shipping website and creates a shipping service inquiry. The SSU can have an existing associated user record such as would be created in first submethod 10, or can create one during the creation of the shipping service inquiry which would require STEPS 1300 and 1400 to be performed by or for the SSU. The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” (Emphasis added).);
. . . ;
“determine a time variable associated with moving an item from a first location to a second location” (Fig. 2 and ¶52 shows “In STEP 2100, the shipping website evaluates the shipping service inquiry to select a prospective drayage provider user whose user data indicates compatibility with the shipping service parameters, including their current drayage capability availability.” (Emphasis added). ¶42 shows “drayage providers will have user data that specifies the kind of power unit(s) they have and their availability for transporting shipping containers over land at any given time.” (Emphasis added). ¶43 shows “For a drayage provider, this would include the various sizes and types of shipping containers the drayage provider has the appropriate power unit(s) to transport, the type and amount of insurance the drayage provider carries, certifications of the drayage provider's drivers, et cetera.” ¶48 shows “The shipping service inquiry comprises a plurality of shipping service parameters including but not limited to date(s) of shipment, shipping container type and/or transport power unit(s) requirements, insurance requirements, certification requirements, pickup and/or dropoff point, et cetera.” The determination of compliance with the requested “date(s) of shipment” teaches the recited “time variable.” See also, Fig. 2-3, ¶¶59-60, ¶69, and ¶¶73-76 showing scheduling of delivery.);
“determine a cost variable associated with one of a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery.);
. . . ;
“determine a supply variable associated with an availability of the one of the plurality of vehicles located at the plurality of locations to obtain the item from the first location and moving the item from the first location to the second location” (¶¶46-47 shows that drayage user data includes availability data. ¶51 shows “For instance, the evaluation could be prioritized by selecting the drayage provider with the lowest rate to perform the desired shipping service, or by the shortest estimated time to complete the shipping service, or the closest available power unit(s) which satisfy the requirement(s) of the shipping container to be shipped, or by a prioritized combination of multiple such parameters.” (Emphasis added). Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. See also ¶59 showing when a drayage provider is marked as “unavailable.”);
“determine a rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles based on the time variable, the cost variable, and the supply variable” (Fig. 10-11 and ¶106 shows “FIGS. 10 and 11 show a seventh optional improvement to the invention, the Preferred Cost Parameters interface. An SSU who is using the method of the invention can further break down their cost preferences and limits by entering limits and/or preferences regarding various components of the total cost of shipping a load. Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them. These can be hard limits or preferences: if they are set as preferences, transport options which exceed them will still be shown, but the system will attempt to order them to get the closest fit possible to the set preferences. The available transport options fitting/closest to the set preferences are shown in output list 108. Optional Accessorial Settings Screen 110 (accessed by activating Accessorial Settings Control 109 on Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100) allows the SSU to either set maximum limits for individual accessorial costs, or remove them altogether in Accessorial Cost Parameter List 112. Alternatively, this improvement can also be used for SSP [(i.e. Shipping Service Providers)] to easily submit and update a portion of the information required in STEP 1400.” Thus, Chou teaches a rate associated with each of the vehicles is based on the cost variable. Examiner notes that ¶106 states “the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within [the price constraints].” Thus, the rates are also determined based on the time variable and supply variable (i.e. vehicles that are available at the needed time).),
“wherein the time variable is further associated with movement of the one of the plurality of vehicles to a plurality of locations required to complete moving of the item from the first location to the second location, wherein the plurality of locations are different from the first location and the second location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of locations different from the first location and second location) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. Fig. 3 and ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.”); and
“transmit to the user equipment the rate associated with each of the plurality of vehicles” (Fig. 3, 12, and ¶107 shows “FIG. 12 shows an eighth optional improvement to the method of the invention, the Default Buy Box. Output Screen 120 shows the result of the search of STEP 3700. (See FIG. 3.). . . The other potential SSP are shown in Output List Box 124. It is neither preferred nor required to show both a default SSP and alternative SSP on the same output list, page or screen. Fig. 12 shows:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 teaches the rate of each vehicle transmitted to the requester.).
Chou does not explicitly teach, but Zografos teaches:
“maintain, in a memory of a first server, a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port and a container status for each vehicle, . . .” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “number” includes a number represented in different forms including Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, and tally marks (e.g. a list of 5 identities teaches the “number” of identities as being 5). ¶39 shows “The TCP provides users with a common single platform to communicate, dispatch, track, and trace the drayage movement of cargo shipping containers from point-to-point origin to destination, providing in-transit visibility throughout the ground transport supply chain process.” ¶57 shows “The features and functionality of the wait time tracking process may be included in a more feature-rich process and application which provides functionality for implementation of: . . . real-time updates of driver and truck qualifications; tracking, reporting and retaining history record of driver wait times for any container within the system.” ¶59 shows “The TCP provides the Port/Board with unrestricted access to pull the raw data and information from the system database collected by the application. The TCP portal provides a flexible, configurable role-based access control model to download collected data and information to a PDF file for printing and to download selected data and information to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format for all pages and data.” Thus, Zografos teaches that the tracked data is maintained (i.e. real-time updates in ¶57) in a memory (i.e. system database in ¶59). ¶62, ¶67, ¶70-74, and Fig. 15a-15b shows the GPS location of the tracked, and entry and exit from a geofence representative of a shipping port is determined. Specifically, ¶62 shows “The GPS data can be viewed in real time on the web portal by users with designated roles. This information is viewable on an integrated map or in a tabular format. The data can be filtered and grouped by configurable geo-fences within the web portal, allowing for actionable events, such as tracking durations and speeds of users through bounded areas [(i.e. entering and exiting port)].” Fig. 15c and ¶75 shows a geofence report including the time each driver enters and exits a certain port, teaching that the system database includes “a number of vehicles entering and exiting the shipping port.” See also ¶80 showing “And in FIG. 17c , the TCP (DrayLink) supports the population of a drayage truck registry (DTR) at individual ports.” Fig. 13a-13c and ¶67 shows “specific trip event tracking and record” includes “[d]etails such as date, time of day start and finish, as well as container information.” Recording the time of an “event” associated with a certain container teaches “container status.” See also ¶82, Fig. 2a-2d, and Fig. 14b showing that status of each container as “empty” or “full” is tracked.);
“receive from [[a]] the first server a first historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).) and
“retrieve from a memory associated with the processor, a second historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location” (Fig. 5a-5b and ¶¶50-51 shows “[0050] FIGS. 5a and 5b provide a schematic which illustrates at a high level the different types of data which may be used to determine wait times, aggregated and individual, and generate details regarding same. As discussed herein, though not required to be wholly separate applications, the DrayQ application of FIG. 5a is less individualistic and more anonymous in nature. By collecting, e.g., sniffing, anonymous Bluetooth, WiFi or other wireless signals and tracking associated MAC IDs along predetermined travel routes, e.g., roads and access areas in and around terminals, and the like, in at least one embodiment, information and history on aggregate wait and turn times is available to users of the application. This collected data may also be used to provide individual wait time information [(i.e. wait time for an individual port)], as well as to track driver movement and cargo delivery using a different version of the application wherein driver-specific, vehicle-specific, pre-determined route information, cargo-specific information and the like are also provided to the application. [0051] Referring to FIG. 5b , in addition to the “sniffed” data, GPS data collected from GPS enabled trucks and smart devices, e.g., mobile smart phones, may also be gathered and used to calculate aggregate, average, historical and actual wait times on a per route and even per driver basis. And the application can refresh the times in virtually real-time as it receives and accesses updated wireless and GPS signals.” Each time the application refreshes the displayed wait times calculated based on historical data, Zografos teaches requesting the information and receiving the information. Fig. 5a-5b shows that the wait time is for each individual port (i.e. historical data associated with moving a plurality of items from at least one of the first location or the second location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zografos with Chou because Chou ¶75 shows “This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route [(i.e. historical data associated with moving items from the first location)] by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (emphasis added) and Zografos teaches use of historical data to better estimate wait times at each port (¶4, ¶13, ¶55 and ¶57). Thus, combining Zografos with Chou furthers the interest taught in Zografos, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Chou and Zografos does not explicitly teach, but Mademann teaches “wherein the cost variable is based on one or both of historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location and historical costs associated with moving past items from the first location to any location” (¶33 shows “A segment cost may be dependent on several sources of cost including: cost-per-mile rates, length of the segment, region, direction of travel, and other fees.” ¶97 shows “Based on historical container movement by third party vendors (motor-carriers) over a specified time frame, optimizer 10 may determine a database containing base truck rates categorized by region. Historic cost data may be derived by average market cost within each region [(i.e. “moving past items from the first location to locations near the second location” and “moving past items from the first location to any location”)]. Flat rates may be determined for regions for some distance ranges (e.g., 0-10 miles, 100-200 miles). For other distance ranges, a rate calculation method may be specified instead of a flat rate. For example, if historical costs for a particular distance range vary widely, the calculation method may be average cost per mile rate. Alternatively or additionally, over a predetermined distance threshold, the calculation method may switch from flat rate to a calculation method. Flat rates may be rounded up to nearest ten-dollar increment or other increment. Rounded flat rates are beneficial so that the provided display of segment costs may be easily identified.” See also ¶¶41-45 showing the data stored by the “optimizer 10” including costs and paths and regional identifier, and ¶¶61-73 showing “door” delivery costs associated with a specific port (i.e. first location).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mademann with Chou and Zografos because Chou ¶106 shows use of a variety of variables including per mile to determine the total cost and Mademann ¶¶96-99 shows that use of historical data can better optimize the route and resulting price. Thus, combining Mademann with Chou and Zografos furthers the interest taught in Mademann, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the determining of the time variable is based on at least one of (i) congestion of the first location, (ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location, (iii) availability of movement vehicles located at the first location, (iv) distance between the movement vehicles located at the first location and the item, and (v) geographic layout of the first location” (Fig. 3-4 and ¶¶64-69 shows that the location of an empty drayage vehicle (i.e. a plurality of vehicles located at a plurality of locations) that has completed a deliver is considered in scheduling the next delivery. ¶75 shows “In STEP 3500 the time of transport for the shipping container is evaluated and a third priority based on required speed of transport is assigned. This can include options such as “fastest possible transport,” “transport time not specified,” or “arrival within (a fixed number of) hours.” If it is preferred to set the route not by time but by total distance traveled, which may be important with certain kinds of loads or to calculate carbon credits, this may also be set as a priority evaluation during this step. This time of transport can be evaluated by estimation of driving distance, by analysis of past travel over the same route by similar carriers, or by any other desired means.” (Emphasis added). ¶78 shows that parameters includes “extra travel time required to pick up and drop off, rate of pay for the load, and shipping timeframe requirements.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, Chou teaches “(ii) distance between the plurality of vehicles and the first location” (i.e. travel distance to pickup). See also ¶74 and ¶76 discussing proximity of “available power unit(s).”).
Regarding Claim 20, Chou in view of Zografos and Mademann teaches “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18,” as described above.
Chou further teaches that “wherein the determining of the cost variable is based on at least one of (i) a cost of fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (ii) a predicted cost of future fuel for the plurality of vehicles, (iii) a number of vehicles included in the plurality of vehicles, (iv) an amount of fuel associated with one the plurality of vehicles moving the item from the first location to the second location, (v) an amount of fuel associated with one of the plurality of vehicles moving from the third location to the first location, and (vi) 11 and ¶106 shows “Here, Preferred Cost Parameter Screen 100 has Engine Fee Limiter 102, Per Mile Fee Limiter 104, and Fuel Surcharge Limiter 106. By adjusting these parameters, the available transport options are further limited to those which fit within them.” The “Fuel Surcharge” of ¶106, teaches the cost variable being “based on” “(i) a cost of fuel for the plurality of vehicles” or “(ii) a predicted cost of future fuel for the plurality of vehicles.”).
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 MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626