DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed July 22, 2026. Applicant’s July 22nd amendment amended claims 1, 18 and 19. Currently Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 18 and 19 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-19 in the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recites a specific technical improvement to computer functionality for data processing and autonomous/semi-autonomous transportation vehicle control/navigation systems (e.g. concrete data structure - "pre-defined data model" therefore not generic LLM; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 14; Last Paragraph Page 15); the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 49 (Specification: Paragraphs 97, 102; Paragraph 1, Page 16); the claims recite automation/physical control of transportation vehicle in physical world (e.g. transforms abstract route, anchoring invention to technical field of vehicle control and navigation systems, improved efficiency, accuracy, safety and response speed in logistic networks/vehicle navigation; Specification: Paragraphs 26, 27, 45; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 16; Paragraph 2, Page 17); the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 17) and the claims recites significantly more than abstract idea/inventive concept (Specification: Paragraphs 102, 69, 107, 45; automated data ingestion, transformation and direct control; solves technical problem of how to efficiently/accurately transform massive amounts of unstructured data into actionable information; Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 18)
In response to applicant's argument that the invention is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the invention includes certain features, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., massive, heterogeneous, and ambiguous unstructured information for accurate logistics network analysis, and lack real-time, automated physical control over transportation means in dynamic environment - Paragraph 1, Page 15; real-time decision-making - Paragraph 1, Page 16 (at best real-time data acquisition - see dependent claims 10, 15, 17) massive amounts of unstructured data - Paragraph 1, Page 18) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite a technical improvement to computer functionality for data processing and autonomous/semi-autonomous transportation vehicle control/navigation systems (integrate the abstract idea into a practical application), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims remain directed to the well-known, conventional and common business practice of transportation routing (a business problem/practice). More specifically, the claims are directed to a system/method for collecting, analyzing and processing unstructured information for a plurality of sources (e.g. social media, news channel) in order to identify and minimize risks to critical transportation routes resulting in an adjusted transportation route that is causes a navigation system to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous transportation means to follow the updated route.
That the claim now recites that the navigation system cause the transportation means to follow the updated transportation network along the adjust transportation routes at best recites an insignificant application of the abstract idea (apply it). The inherent purpose/role of a transportation route is to be followed. That a generic ‘navigation system’ causes a transportation means to following an adjusted transportation network along adjusted transportation routes is the explicit purpose of transportation routing/route planning, wherein merely following an adjust route is an insignificant application of the abstract idea of transportation routing (the thrust of the claims). The lack of specific details, either disclosed or claimed, related to HOW the navigation system actually controls the transportation means further supports the conclusion that the navigation control step is merely results based and a simple application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “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). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
MPEP 2106.05(g): Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of transportation planning/routing, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application, provide a technical solution to a technical problem, improve any of the underlying technology or improve another technical field (transportation planning/routing is not a technical field).
Other than the recitation of a computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system, transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system, transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous) are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., computer readable memory storing instructions, processor, display device), network and/or database (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of outputting an adjust transportation route to a navigation system. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology, are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Regarding the recited large language model (LLM) utilized to generate structured information comprising events and disruptions in a transportation network, the examiner notes that the large language model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic large language model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The large language model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the large language model functions. The large language model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic large language model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a LLM in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained neural network is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
With regards to the newly recited limitation that the LLM is configured to a predefined data model comprising structured information representing events and disruptions in the transportation network, that the LLM comprises a ‘predefined data model’ does not render the LLM any less generic. While the claims continued to recite that the data model comprises transportation network events and disruptions there is no specific data model claimed (e.g. no specific schema, entity relationships, database columns/rows, indexes, or the like). Any data model is predefined. This generic high-level description of the data utilized by the LLM does not further limit the LLM or how the LLM functions. The LLM remains a generic LLM model recited at a high level of generality. Claim 1, for example, does not recite WHO or WHAT entity performs the analyzing step utilizing the LLM and therefore cannot possible provide a technical solution to a technical problem or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of acquiring unstructured information which is considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data which is well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above the claims merely recite the utilization of generic computing elements each used for their well-known, generic, conventional and routine purpose. None of Applicant’s arguments, disclosure of claims disclose or recite an improvement in any of the claimed technological elements. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of transportation planning. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology is used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Further it is noted that “If a claim’s only “inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” /d. at 1290; Final Act. 6—7 (claim 1 recites only an abstract idea; claims 10 and 11 recite only a generic computer and steps), 9.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), wherein the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” The instant application does not disclose non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 49, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues, in two sentences, that disclosure describes the inherent challenges of unstructured information and states that utilizing LLMs in the process automates and standardizes information elements which typically involve data experts thereby improving computer data processing capabilities. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At best the claims, in light of the disclosure, may automate a manual process using generic computer technology (e.g. generic LLM, processor/computer).
SME 49 is directed to utilizing an artificial intelligence model to assist in personalizing medical treatments to a particular patient in order to administer the appropriate a post-surgical fibrosis treatment. SME 49 claim 1 was found ineligible as it was directed to an abstract idea and did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, specifically finding that the administering step failed to provide any specific limitations as to how the patient was to be treated and did not recite any meaningful constraints on the administering step there the claims merely apply the abstract idea or to a mere indication of the file of use or technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed. Claims 1, 18 and 19 are similar to SME 47 Claim 1 and are found patent ineligible for similar reasons (i.e. the step of the “…navigation system controls movement of the transportation means….” – recited at a high level, no specific HOW, no meaningful constraints).
SME 48 claim 2 was found eligible as claim 2 added additional limitations to recite a specific treatment (administration of Compound X eye drops). Specifically, the wherein clause encompass the administration of a “particular treatment” when considered in the context of the claim as a whole. Specifically, the additional elements have more than a nominal relationship to the judicial exception because they use the abstract idea of determining patient risk of PI in a manner that meaningfully limits it. That is, the abstract idea is used to identify the patient as belonging to a specific patient population (glaucoma patients at high risk of PI), and the patient is then administered a treatment (Compound X eye drops instead of any common anti-fibrotic treatment, such as drug A, after microstent implant surgery) that is particular to that specific patient population (glaucoma patients at high risk of PI). Relying on the determination of patient risk to administer Compound X eye drops to glaucoma patients at high risk of PI after microstent implant surgery is therefore a particular treatment for a medical condition such that the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES). Therefore, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception. (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 of the instant application are nothing like SME 49, Claim 2 and therefore are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 97, this paragraph discloses that a plural of information sources (social media, weather forecasts, etc.) comprise private, public, communal and state institutions. Nothing in this paragraph fails to discuss at any level the navigation system for controlling the routing of a transportation means much alone a specific means for controlling a transportation means. This paragraph fails to disclose an improvement to LLM or a specific predefined data model.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 102 discloses that the system synthesizes structured information complying with a predefined data model and utilizes LLMs in the process to automate, at least partially, a process that typically involves data experts/specialists. This paragraph merely discloses a well-known, conventional and routine use of LLMs in generally. This paragraph fails to disclose a specific LLM or a specific pre-defined data model. At best this paragraph discloses a wished-for benefit without any constraints or limitations or discussion as to HOW those wished for benefits/results are actually achieved.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims physically control a transportation vehicle in the physical world, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The final step of representative claim 1 recites “for an autonomous OR semi-autonomous transportation means, the navigation system controls movement of the transportation means to cause the transportation means to follow the updated transportation network along the adjusted transportation routes.” As discussed above in detail, this final step is directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea and merely recites the result of applying the abstract idea (following a route). None of Applicant’s disclosure, claims or arguments provide a specific control mechanism or limitations/constraints as HOW the control step is performed, much alone disclose/recite improvements in any of the technological elements of the claims (e.g. the transportation means is not improved as it merely follows a route; the navigation system is not improved as it merely navigates – generically).
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims efficiency, accuracy, safety and response speed in logistic networks/vehicle navigation, the examiner notes that such wished-for benefits of the claims is at best a business benefit (i.e. a business solution to a business problem).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 26, this paragraph discloses that the invention may acquire unstructured information in real-time or almost real-time (a feature not recited in the independent claims) and the real-time may include a time delay due to data processor or network transmission. This paragraph does not disclose a solution to dealing with time data processing or network time delays of any kind nor disclose or discuss at any level how the claimed invention improves data processing or networking. This paragraph fails to discuss at any level of detail the navigation system or transportation means or a specific control mechanism or limitations/constraints as HOW the control step is performed.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 27, merely discloses that the invention analyzes data acquired from a plural of unstructured information sources. This paragraph fails to disclose an technical problem related to acquiring data from a plural of unstructured information sources much alone disclose a technical solution or improvement in any of the claimed technical elements related to acquiring data from plural information sources. This paragraph fails to discuss at any level of detail the navigation system or transportation means or a specific control mechanism or limitations/constraints as HOW the control step is performed.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 45 discloses that the system may influence transportation rates (a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers/computer networks) and that live event updates are taken into consideration if required to answer questions obtained by an operator (feature not claimed). This paragraph fails to discuss at any level of detail the navigation system or transportation means or a specific control mechanism or limitations/constraints as HOW the control step is performed.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant's argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
SME 47, claim 1, is directed to an application specific integrated circuit for an artificial intelligence network wherein the ASIC (i.e. particular machine) comprises a plurality of neurons, each comprising a register, microprocessor and at least one input and a plurality of synaptic circuits including memory and connected to at least one neuron. Claim 1 was found patent eligible as it was directed to a physical circuit (ASIC) and does not recite an abstract idea.
SME 47, Claim 2 is directed to a outputting detected anomalies in a data set using a trained ANN network. Claim 2 was found patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims failed to put any limits on how the continuous data is received, did not limit the plain meaning of discretizing, recited a generic ANN executed on a generic computer and merely outputs data.
SME 47, claim 3, is directed to a system and method that utilizes an trained artificial neural network to identify/detect and drop malicious network packets in real-time wherein the trained ANN detects anomalies in network traffic more accurately than traditional network anomaly detection methods and provides for faster training times. The claimed invention is directed to providing a technical solution to a technical problem. More specifically providing, similar to the findings in DDR, "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Further that the invention established an "inventive concept" for resolving an Internet-centric problem.
In sharp contrast SME 47, patent eligible claims 1 and 3 the instant application neither discloses nor recites a specific computer/machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) much alone an ASIC as is the case in At best the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In sharp contrast the instant application and claimed invention are directed to transportation planning/routine – a business problem, not a technical problem and does not disclose or claim (provide) a technical solution to a technical problem necessarily rooted in computer technology or to overcome a problem arising from the realm of computer networks. Independent claims 1, 18 and 19 do not recite restrictions or limitations to the LLM (a predefined data model is not a meaningful limitation, see discussion above); and the independent claims do not recite training or utilization or application of a trained artificial intelligence or machine learning model. As such the independent claims are not similar to SME 47 as argued.
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to those found patentable in Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite an inventive concept/recite significantly more than an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of transportation routing/planning. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (e.g. network interface, software modules, transportation means, navigation system (software per se), etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1, 18 and 19 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims solve technical problem of how to efficiently/accurately transform massive amounts of unstructured data into actionable information, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially it is noted that nowhere in the pending claims in a massive amount of unstructured data actually claimed. Even if the claims recited the phrase ‘massive’ such a relative term would be indefinite and not given patentable weight. Transforming data into data, even unstructured data, is not a transformation – data remains data even when acted upon/processed by a generic computer performing generic computer functions. Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion that the claimed method steps improve he recited computer/processors speed or efficiency. At best Applicant’s disclosure, see at least Specification Paragraphs 23, 25 and 26 disclose that a wished-for benefit/result of the invention is to improve the efficiency of supply chain management/logistics supply chains (i.e. business improvement to a well-known economic practice).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 45 discloses that the system may influence transportation rates (a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers/computer networks) and that live event updates are taken into consideration if required to answer questions obtained by an operator (feature not claimed). This paragraph fails to discuss at any level of detail the navigation system or transportation means or a specific control mechanism or limitations/constraints as HOW the control step is performed.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 69, Paragraph 69 discloses that the dynamic graph comprises time-dependent weights associated with edges representing transportation rates (i.e. modeling transportation costs – using a well-known mathematical technique/operation). This paragraph fails to disclose an improvement to any of the underlying technology and fails to disclose significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 102, this paragraph discloses that the system synthesizes structured information complying with a predefined data model and utilizes LLMs in the process to automate, at least partially, a process that typically involves data experts/specialists. This paragraph merely discloses a well-known, conventional and routine use of LLMs in generally. This paragraph fails to disclose a specific LLM or a specific pre-defined data model. At best this paragraph discloses a wished-for benefit without any constraints or limitations or discussion as to HOW those wished for benefits/results are actually achieved.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 107 discloses that information on past events is obtained from a risk even database and current structured information. This paragraph fails to disclose an improvement to any of the underlying technology and fails to disclose significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 18 and 19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of transportation routing. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, transportation routing (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing and processing unstructured information for a plurality of sources (e.g. social media, news channel) in order to identify and minimize risks to critical transportation routes resulting in an adjusted transportation route that is causes a navigation system to control an autonomous or semi-autonomous transportation means to follow the updated route, wherein transportation routing is a fundamental economic practice. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “acquiring”, “analyzing”, “analyzing”, “generating”, “determining”, “minimizing”, “updates” and “controls” recite functions of the transportation routing are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 18, and 19 appears to be to cause an autonomous or semiautonomous transportation means to follow an updated transportation network along adjusted transportation routes, in order to minimize risk to critical transportation routes or links based on risk metrics (e.g. delivery time delays).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are generic the computer elements: computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system and the transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous). See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system, transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous). These generic computing components are merely used to access, process/analyze or output data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 8). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's transportation routing in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system, transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous)," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited large language model (LLM) for generating structured information, the LLM is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic LLM on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The LLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the LLM. The LLM is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic LLM to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of analyzing unstructured data, analyzing historical information, generating a dynamic graph, determining critical transportation routes, minimizing a risk of transportation network by adjusting, automatically updates the transportation network and control the movement of the transportation means all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer, computer-readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, network interface, processor, data storage, dynamic graph representation module (software per se), network-analysis modules (software per se), output interface, navigation system, transportation means (autonomous/semi-autonomous) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps acquiring unstructured information is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The final step directed to the navigation system causing the transportation means to follow the updated transportation network along the adjust transportation routes recites an insignificant application of the abstract idea (apply it). The inherent purpose/role of a transportation route is to be followed. That a generic ‘navigation system’ causes a generic transportation means to follow an adjusted transportation network along adjusted transportation routes is the explicit purpose of transportation routing/route planning, wherein merely following an adjusted route, by a (generic) transportation means, is an insignificant application of the abstract idea of transportation routing. The lack of specific details, either disclosed or claimed, related to HOW the navigation system actually controls the transportation means further supports the conclusion that the navigation control step is merely results based and a simple application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer, computer readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, system, processor, data storage, network interface, output interface are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of acquiring, processing or outputting data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the recited large language model (LLM) for generating structured information, the LLM is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic LLM on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The LLM is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the LLM. The LLM is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic LLM to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a n LLM in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained neural network is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-17, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of transportation routing and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 18 and 19.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by estimating a first risk metric representing an expected disruption impact and a second risk metric a probability of occurrence of the risk (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by representing the structured information in a graph and detecting graph motifs (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by modeling the transportation network with edges between nodes representing links with time-dependent links (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by updating risk metrics based on current structured information generated by the LLM, determining critical transportation routes and links by spectral analysis using the updated risk metrics, minimizing risk by adjusting transportation routes based on the updated risk metrics (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by acquiring unstructured information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the structure information comprising historical risk information on past events (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by acquiring logistics supply chain data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by updating predictive risk models based on a difference between current and previous unstructured information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by acquiring real-time information, analyzing current unstructured information, updating risk metrics, updating time-dependent weights, determining initial transportation routes, minimizing risk and generating/outputting analysis signal (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by adjusting iteratively weights and transportation routes, storing adjusted routes in case overall risk is below a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by analyzing an adjusted network graph, generating optimized network adaptation recommendations and outputting recommendations (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by obtaining using input including questions, analyzing an adjusted network graph and outputting a response (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the user input to real-time events or information and analyzing user input (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the response to visual information including heat map of traffic, timelines, expected delivery changes or resource allocations (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea by acquiring current unstructured information from a plural sources in real-time (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-19, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer, computer readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, system, processor, data storage, network interface, output interface at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer, computer readable storage medium embodying a program, digital processing apparatus, system, processor, data storage, network interface, output interfaces merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights