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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 21-49 have been canceled.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
receiving one or more load identifiers;
providing one or more internal transporter indications and an open marketplace transporter indication for an open marketplace;
receiving a user input to select a selected transporter indication among the one or more internal transporter indications and the open marketplace transporter indication;
generating a first order based on the one or more load identifiers and the selected transporter indication;
in response to the selected transporter indication being selected from the one or more internal transporter indications, outputting the first order to an internal transporter corresponding to the selected transporter indication; and
in response to the selected transporter indication being selected from the open marketplace transporter indication, outputting the first order to the open marketplace system.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for arranging transportation services for an order either with an internal transporter or a transporter on an open marketplace (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
The invention shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020)—business practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as business practices designed to arrange the of delivery of goods to customers). See also GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc., 2015 WL 6747142, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (finding claims directed to "booking and tracing container shipments through a third party is an abstraction" because the use of a third party intermediary and shipping of goods are established and "conventional business practice[s]"); Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405, 415 (D.N.J. 2015) (finding the "process of monitoring and moving shipping containers and collecting the relevant data as to the location of the shipping containers" is "an abstraction").
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (system/server system; network interface configured to communicatively couple the server system to a network; memory storing computer-executable instructions; one or more electronic processors, the one or more electronic processors configured to retrieve and execute the computer-executable instructions; nontransitory computer readable medium storing instructions—all recited at a high level of generality).
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (system/server system; network interface configured to communicatively couple the server system to a network; memory storing computer-executable instructions; one or more electronic processors, the one or more electronic processors configured to retrieve and execute the computer-executable instructions; nontransitory computer readable medium storing instructions—see published Specification ¶¶ 0042-45 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., a generic processor). Claim 14 adds an internal database; however, this does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is another generic computing element that merely serves to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., an internal database), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶ 0043 describing the technical features of the database at a high level of generality that indicates it was conventional at the time of invention). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenelon, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0173700 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Fenelon teaches an electronic transportation management system comprising:
a server system (¶¶ 0091-92) comprising:
a network interface configured to communicatively couple the server system to a network (¶¶ 0091-92),
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (¶¶ 0091-92), and
one or more electronic processors, the one or more electronic processors configured to retrieve and execute the computer-executable instructions (¶¶ 0091-92) to cause the server system to:
receive one or more load identifiers (¶¶ 0044, 66; Fig. 15),
provide one or more internal transporter indications and an open marketplace transporter indication for an open marketplace system (¶ 0044; Fig. 11),
receive a user input, via the network interface, to select a selected transporter indication among the one or more internal transporter indications and the open marketplace transporter indication (¶ 0044, 66; Fig. 11),
generate a first order based on the one or more load identifiers and the selected transporter indication (¶¶ 0083-84),
output the first order to an internal transporter corresponding to the selected transporter indication in response to the selected transporter indication being selected from the one or more internal transporter indications (¶¶ 0055-56, 84-85—shipment assigned to internal carrier), and
output the first order to the open marketplace system in response to the selected transporter indication being selected from the open marketplace transporter indication (¶¶ 0083-85—shipment assigned to major carrier shipping service).
As per claim 2, Fenelon teaches claim 1 as above. Fenelon further teaches a first load identifier of the one or more load identifiers is associated with first load transportation information comprising a pickup location and a drop-off location (¶¶ 0018, 51, 56).
As per claim 3, Fenelon teaches claim 1 as above. Fenelon further teaches the server system is further to generate a preorder based on the one or more load identifiers (¶ 0044 (see published Specification ¶ 0054—"In some examples, a preorder indicates an order without an assigned transporter.")), and wherein to generate the first order, the server system is further to: assign the selected transporter indication to the preorder to generate the first order (¶¶ 0083-85).
As per claim 4, Fenelon teaches claim 1 as above. Fenelon further teaches the one or more internal transporter indications is indicative of an inhouse transporter or one or more partner transporters (¶ 0044).
As per claim 5, Fenelon teaches claim 1 as above. Fenelon further teaches the server system is further to: generate a second order based on one or more other load identifiers (¶ 0082; Fig. 15); and combine the first order and the second order based on at least one of: a pickup location, a drop-off location, a delivery date, a status indication, or a route from the pickup location to the drop-off location of each of the first order and the second order (¶ 0051—Pouch Routes; ¶¶ 0084-85—status; see also Fig. 17 showing drop-off locations; as well as ¶ 0042 & Fig. 15 showing the orders originating from the same pickup location (i.e., the company mailroom)).
As per claims 6-8, 10, and 17, Fenelon teaches a method for an electronic transportation management system, comprising: steps implementing the functions of analogous claims 1-5 (see citations above).
As per claim 9, Fenelon teaches claim 8 as above. Fenelon further teaches receiving, by the electronic processor, one or more other load identifiers (¶ 0044; Fig. 15); determining, by the electronic processor, a group of the one or more load identifiers and the one or more other load identifiers based on at least one of: a pickup location, a drop-off location, a delivery date, or a route associated with each of the one or more load identifiers and the one or more other load identifiers (¶ 0051—Pouch Routes; see also Fig. 17 showing drop-off locations; as well as ¶ 0042 & Fig. 15 showing the orders originating from the same pickup location (i.e., the company mailroom)); and providing, by the electronic processor, the group for the preorder, wherein generating the preorder comprising: generating the preorder based on the group (¶ 0044; Fig. 15 (see published Specification ¶ 0054—"In some examples, a preorder indicates an order without an assigned transporter.")).
As per claim 15, Fenelon teaches claim 6 as above. Fenelon further teaches in response to the selected transporter indication being selected from the open marketplace transporter indication, obtaining, by the electronic processor, a status of the first order from the open marketplace system (¶¶ 0083-85, 89).
As per claim 16, Fenelon teaches claim 15 as above. Fenelon further teaches the status of the first order comprises an order creation indication from the open marketplace system (¶¶ 0083-86, 89).
As per claim 18, Fenelon teaches claim 6 as above. Fenelon further teaches determining, by the electronic processor, whether the first order meets a triggering condition (¶¶ 0079-80); and generating, by the electronic processor, a task based on the first order meeting the triggering condition (¶¶ 0079-80).
As per claim 19, Fenelon teaches claim 18 as above. Fenelon further teaches the task comprises at least one selected from a group of combining the one or more load identifiers with other load identifiers based on the triggering condition or combining the first order with another order based on the triggering condition (Fig. 15; ¶¶ 0079-80).
As per claim 20, Fenelon teaches a nontransitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, cause the electronic processor to: perform steps implementing the functions of analogous claim 1 (see citations 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenelon in view of Kieboom, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0147927 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 11, Fenelon teaches claim 10 as above. Fenelon does not explicitly teach determining, by the electronic processor, the one or more partner transporters among a plurality of partner transporters based on at least one of: a pickup location associated with the one or more load identifiers, a drop-off location associated with the one or more load identifiers, or a usage indication of the one or more partner transporters; which is taught by Kieboom (¶ 0023, 26). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Kieboom—namely, to expand the possible transportation services and use nearby drivers. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of shipping. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 12, Fenelon teaches claim 10 as above. Although Fenelon teaches indicators for selected transporters (see above), it does not explicitly teach the transporter is a first partner transporter of the one or more partner transporters, and wherein the method further comprises: sharing the first order with the first partner transporter; which is taught by Kieboom (¶¶ 0023, 26) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 11 above.
As per claim 14, Fenelon teaches claim 10 as above. Fenelon further teaches generating, by the electronic processor, other orders for the inhouse transporter and an open marketplace transporter of the open marketplace system (¶ 0044; Fig. 15); dynamically accessing, by the electronic processor, an internal database for a first subset of the other orders for the inhouse transporter to obtain a first status of the first subset of the other orders (¶¶ 0084-85, 89); dynamically accessing, by the electronic processor, the internal database for a second subset of the other orders to obtain a second status of the first subset of the other orders (¶¶ 0084-85, 89); dynamically obtaining, by the electronic processor, a third status of a third subset of the other orders for the open marketplace transporter from the open marketplace system (¶¶ 0084-85, 89); and providing, by the electronic processor, a first status of the first subset of the other orders, a second status of the second subset of the other orders, and a third status of the third subset of the other orders (¶¶ 0084-85, 89). Fenelon does not explicitly teach the one or more partner transporters and that the second subset of for the one or more partner transporters; which is taught by Kieboom (¶¶ 0023, 26) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 11 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenelon in view of Kostyanovskaya, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0090740 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 13, Fenelon teaches claim 10 as above. Fenelon does not explicitly teach outputting the first order to the internal transporter corresponding to the selected transporter indication comprises: outputting the first order to a driver of the internal transporter; which is taught by Kostyanovskaya (¶¶ 0019, 33; see also ¶ 0016—internal transporter). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Kostyanovskaya—namely, so that drivers are apprised of their assignments. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of shipping. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hunt, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,716 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Khaleghi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0230023 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Glick, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0036305 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Pevzer, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0134557 (Reference G of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Dyk, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0370735 (Reference H of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Boye, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0096300 (Reference I of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Kim, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0372263 (Reference J of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Natarajan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0270468 (Reference K of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Coles, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0063436 (Reference L of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Cao, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,823,118 (Reference M of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Lindsey, et. al, Sourcing truckload capacity in the transportation spot market: A framework for third party providers, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 102, 2017, pgs. 261-273 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to transportation management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628