DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed2/3/2026. Claims 1, 4 and 19 were amended. Claims 1-26 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to claims 1-26 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims fail to recite a judicial exception because the claims are not directed to managing interactions between people. Only certain methods of organizing human activity are patent ineligible. Those certain methods include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is what the Office has characterized the current claims as covering. Applicant respectfully disagrees… The Office Action characterizes independent claims 1 and 19 as "a method of managing interactions between people" (Office Action at page 3). Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is improper. Specifically, the present claims do not fall within social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims are directed to a specific technological process for machine-to-machine data acquisition, data fusion, automated electronic map rendering, and risk-based delay analysis in transportation tracking systems, not to managing social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions that are recognized as managing interactions between people. The claims recite concrete technical operations, including receiving maritime vessel identifiers from a terminal at a transportation tracking server (e.g., vessel name, IMO number, MMSI number, and Call sign), mapping navigation routes of vessels and real-time vessel locations onto an electronic map, and mapping vessel cargo information to corresponding vessels. These steps describe automated communications between computing systems and operator servers (e.g., "a terminal" and "a transportation tracking server"), programmatic data processing, and dynamic electronic mapping. The claims do not involve, require, manage, nor organize interactions between people. Moreover, even if "logistics management" were viewed at a high level, the claimed workflows cannot be practically performed in the human mind because they require networked server queries using identifiers to disambiguate vessels, ingestion of real-time location streams, and dynamic electronic map rendering, all of which are technical operations incapable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and are therefore patent eligible under § 101.”, (see remarks , pg. 15-18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for logistics management system, which is a method of managing interactions between people, as individuals utilizing a database can track and record vessel information to communicate as needed with the necessary parties. The computing elements such as “terminal, server, mapping part of claim 1; terminal, server of claim 19” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 2/3/2026 are moot in light of the newly cited Garcia.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for logistics management system.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 19 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “transportation tracking configured to communicate and to process transportation information about transportation, wherein the transportation tracking includes a vessel tracking configured to: process transportation information about vessels by using pieces of vessel identification information received, wherein each of the pieces of vessel identification information includes a vessel name, an international maritime organization (IMO) number, a maritime mobile service identity (MMSI) number, and a Call sign; and provide the transportation information about the vessels, and wherein the vessel tracking includes: a vessel-map configured to receive pieces of navigation information of the vessels corresponding to the pieces of vessel identification information from a vessel information operator by providing the pieces of vessel identification information to the vessel information operator, and to map navigation routes of the vessels and real-time locations of the vessels onto a map; and a vessel-cargo configured to map vessel cargo information to a corresponding vessel among the vessels” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (terminal, server, mapping part of claim 1; terminal, server of claim 19) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-26 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (terminal, server, mapping part of claim 1; terminal, server of claim 19). The terminal, server, mapping part of claim 1; terminal, server of claim 19, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20-26 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the terminal in claims 2-4, 6, 8, 17, 20-21; server in claims 3-13, 16-18, 20-21, mapping part of claim 2, 6, 8, 10-11; device in claims 11 and 21; calculating part in claims 7, 9, 12-16; automation part in claim 17; accident photo in claim 17; logistics executor in claim 17; database in claims 15, 18 and 25; processing part in claims 17-18; , are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210081890 - hereinafter Atwood) in view of Miller et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220172161 - hereinafter Miller) in view of Garcia et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230368121 - hereinafter Garcia).
Re. claim 1, Atwood teaches:
An integrated logistics management system, comprising:
a terminal; and [Atwood; ¶34 shows computing device].
a transportation tracking server configured to communicate with the terminal and to process transportation information about transportation, wherein the transportation tracking server includes a vessel tracking server configured to: [Atwood; ¶33-¶34 shows server. ¶35-¶36 identifies a type of vehicle as a vessel. ¶49 and ¶53 shows tracking of vehicle (vessel) through the transportation process].
process transportation information about vessels by using pieces of vessel identification information received from the terminal; and [Atwood; ¶44-¶46 shows “an itinerary can provide information regarding a route the shipment may take (e.g., by specifying the origin and/or destination of one or more shipping legs); identification of one or more shipping vehicles that will perform the shipment (e.g., the specific identification names, numbers, or codes (vehicle IDs) of one or more shipping vehicles that will carry the cargo);”].
Atwood doesn’t teach, Miller teaches:
provide the transportation information about the vessels to the terminal, and wherein the vessel tracking server includes: [Miller; ¶80].
a vessel-map mapping part configured to receive pieces of navigation information of the vessels corresponding to the pieces of vessel identification information from a vessel information operator server by providing the pieces of vessel identification information to the vessel information operator server, and to map navigation routes of the vessels and real-time locations of the vessels onto a map; and [Miller; ¶80 shows order server providing route information to a delivery vehicle to deliver products].
a vessel-cargo mapping part configured to map vessel cargo information to a corresponding vessel among the vessels. [Miller; ¶80].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Miller in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Garcia teaches:
wherein each of the pieces of vessel identification information includes a vessel name, an international maritime organization (IMO) number, a maritime mobile service identity (MMSI) number, and a Call sign, [Garcia; ¶190 shows IMO number. ¶149 shows vessel name with call sign in the form of alphanumeric dataset and MMSI number].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Garcia in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood teaches:
wherein the vessel-map mapping part provides the terminal with navigation information of vessels onto which the vessel cargo information is mapped from among the vessels, and [Atwood; ¶44-¶46]
Atwood doesn’t teach, Miller teaches:
navigation information of vessels onto which the vessel cargo information is not mapped from among the vessels. [Miller; ¶21]. Please see motivation to combine Atwood in view of Miller presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 3, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood teaches:
wherein the vessel tracking server does not receive a bill of lading from the terminal. [Atwood; ¶33-¶34 doesn’t show bill of lading in reference, therefore server won’t receive a bill of lading from a terminal].
Re. claim 4, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Garcia teaches:
wherein each of the pieces of vessel identification information includes a vessel name, an international maritime organization (IMO) number, a maritime mobile service identity (MMSI) number, and a Call sign, [Garcia; ¶190 shows IMO number. ¶149 shows vessel name with call sign in the form of alphanumeric dataset and MMSI number].
the terminal provides the vessel name to the vessel information operator server, and receives the IMO number, the MMSI number, and the Call sign, which correspond to the vessel name, from the vessel information operator server, and [Garcia; ¶149 and ¶190].
the terminal provides the vessel tracking server with the vessel name, the IMO number, the MMSI number, and the Call sign. [Garcia; ¶149 and ¶190].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Garcia in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 19,
Method of claim 19 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Claims 5, 8-11 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240333678 - hereinafter Daniels).
Re. claim 5, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Daniels teaches:
wherein the transportation tracking server further includes a risk collecting server configured to collect risk information from a risk information providing server, and [Daniels; ¶39].
the vessel tracking server receives the risk information from the risk collecting server, and calculates whether the vessel, onto which the vessel cargo information is mapped is delayed based on the risk information. [Daniels; ¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Daniels in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 8, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 5.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Daniels teaches:
wherein the transportation tracking server further includes a truck tracking server configured to process transportation information about a truck and to provide the processed transportation information to the terminal, and wherein the truck tracking server includes: [Daniels; ¶4 shows one of the transportation methods listed as truck transport].
a truck-map mapping part configured to receive driving information of the truck corresponding to truck identification information from a transportation operator server by providing the truck identification information to the transportation operator server, and to map a driving route of the truck and a real-time location of the truck onto the map; and [Daniels; ¶39 shows tracking during the shipping operation such as “Another data source may track the movement of goods through a shipping port in close geographic proximity to the company. When a data source indicates a potential issue related to the movement of goods through the shipping port, a shipping risk (e.g., a delay or inability to ship through the port) can be identified for the company even though the data source providing port information did not directly identify the company. Associations can have various levels of confidence depending on whether a direct statement is included in the data or whether the linkage is inferred through one or more pieces of evidence. Furthermore associations can be defined in a hierarchy across multiple levels of related entities, subsidiaries, and supply chain dependencies”].
a truck-cargo mapping part configured to map truck cargo information to the truck. [Daniels; ¶38-¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Daniels in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 8.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Daniels teaches:
wherein the truck tracking server further includes a truck delay calculating part configured to receive the risk information from the risk collecting server, and to calculate whether the truck is delayed based on the risk information. [Daniels; ¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Daniels in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 10, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 8.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Daniels teaches:
wherein the truck-map mapping part further receives the real-time location of the truck, which is obtained from a location tracking application matched to the truck from a location tracking information operator server. [Daniels; ¶38-¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Daniels in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 11, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 8.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Daniels teaches:
wherein the truck-map mapping part further receives the real-time location of the truck, which is obtained from a location tracking device matched to the truck from a location tracking device operator server. [Daniels; ¶38-¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Daniels in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 21,
Method of claim 21 substantially mirrors the system of claims 8-9
Claims 6-7 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels in view of Parry et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150324741 - hereinafter Parry).
Re. claim 6, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 5.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Parry teaches:
wherein the transportation tracking server further includes a flight tracking server configured to process transportation information about an aircraft and to provide the processed transportation information to the terminal, and wherein the flight tracking server includes: [Parry; ¶13 and Fig. 4].
a flight-map mapping part configured to receive flight information of the aircraft corresponding to a flight number by providing the flight number to a flight information providing server, and to map a flight route of the aircraft and a real-time location of the aircraft onto the map; and [Parry; ¶13 and Fig. 4].
a flight-cargo mapping part configured to map air cargo information onto the aircraft. [Parry; ¶13 and Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Parry in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 7, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 6.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Parry teaches:
wherein the flight tracking server further includes a flight delay calculating part configured to receive the risk information from the risk collecting server, and to calculate whether the aircraft is delayed based on the risk information. [Parry; ¶13 and Fig. 4, further ¶17 shows anticipated delays such as “the tracking service may generate a notification when the tracking data indicates that a shipment is delayed or canceled”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Parry in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 20,
Method of claim 20 substantially mirrors the system of claims 6.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels in view of Park et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20090076933 - hereinafter Park).
Re. claim 12, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Daniels teaches system of claim 8.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Park teaches:
wherein the truck tracking server further includes:
an optimal route calculating part configured to calculate a shortest route from a starting point to a destination as an optimal route based on road information about the starting point and the destination of the truck; and [Park; ¶230]
an estimated arrival time calculating part configured to calculate an estimated arrival time of the truck based on past driving records corresponding to the driving route, and [Park; ¶100].
wherein, in case that a plurality of shortest routes in a predetermined error range are calculated, the optimal route calculating part sets a shortest route at a low altitude as the optimal route. [Park; ¶100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Park in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 22,
Method of claim 22 substantially mirrors the system of claims 12.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia in view of Simpson et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230098246 - hereinafter Simpson).
Re. claim 17, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Simpson teaches:
further comprising:
an insurance accident managing server configured to manage an insurance accident in case that an accident occurs, wherein the insurance accident managing server includes: an accident registration processing part configured to receive an initial report, an interim report, and a completion report on the accident in case that the accident occurs, and to provide the terminal with the initial report, the interim report, and the completion report; and an insurance intake automation part configured to receive first essential files including an accident item, a starting point, a destination, and an accident photo from a logistics executor, to download second essential files including an invoice and a packing list from an internal server, and to submit an insurance intake file generated by using the first essential files and the second essential files to an insurer, in case that the accident is covered by insurance. [Simpson; ¶94, ¶157, ¶580-¶590, ¶602].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Simpson in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 18, Atwood in view of Miller in view of Garcia teaches system of claim 1.
Atwood doesn’t teach, Simpson teaches:
further comprising:
a document integrating server configured to integrate reports of partners, wherein the document integrating server includes: a partner reporting format database configured to store the reports of the partners; a master format database configured to store an integrated master format obtained by integrating items of the reports of the partners stored in the partner reporting format database; and a master format processing part configured to input the items of the reports of the partners into an item of the integrated master format. [Simpson; ¶94, ¶157, ¶580-¶590, ¶602].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Simpson in the system of Atwood, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that Dependent claims 13-16 and 23-26 have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628