DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed April 8, 2026. Applicant’s April 8th 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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 18 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
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 April 8, 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 claim are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. specifical technical data processing architecture rooted in computer technology and cannot be performed mentally - e.g. combination of LLM based information extraction, dynamic graph modeling, etc. constitutes a technical solution to the technical problem of real-time identification of critical vulnerabilities in logistic networks; Remarks: Pages 14-16); and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. outputting adjust routes for a technical implementation in a transportation means, technical output component, feeding a navigation system; LLM driven, graph analytic, iterative optimization pipeline operating in real-time, large scale data; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 16; Page 17).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to the well-known, conventional and common business practice of transportation routing (or as argued by Applicant identification of critical vulnerabilities (risks) in logistic network in order to minimize the identified risks – 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 by outputting an adjusted transportation route to a navigation system of a transportation means (autonomous, semi-autonomous, human controlled - feeding a navigation system).
Examiner notes that the outputted adjust transportation route recites insignificant post-solution/extra-solution activity (mere data output) wherein the intended use (non-functional descriptive material) of the outputted data (analysis signal “to a navigation system for implementing directly…the at least one adjusted transportation route….” - feeding a navigation system) may at best represent an insignificant application of the abstract idea. The claims merely output data which may or may not be received much alone acted upon. The claims do not positively recite that the navigation system actually receives or subsequently performs/executes the adjusted route. Even if Applicant were to amend the claims to positively recite the navigation system receiving and performing the adjusted route (which includes a human viewing a well-known navigation system route/map), this step would be nothing more than an insignificant application of the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g) (i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)).
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 (e.g. 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).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of acquiring unstructured information from plural information sources may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. This step is also directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering). The step of analyzing unstructured data using a large language model to generate structured data may be performed in the human mind using by using evaluation. The step of analyzing historical information and identifying correlations between events and disruptions may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and opinion. The step of generating a dynamic graph comprising nodes and edges representing a transportation network may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of determined critical transportation routes/links by performing spectral analysis may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of minimizing risk by iteratively adjusted time-dependent weights and transportation routes may be performed in the human mid via judgement and opinion. The step of generating and outputting an adjusted transportation route may be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. This step is also directed to insignificant post-solution activity.
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 or human controlled) 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 or human controlled) 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), sensors, 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.
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 and outputting an adjusted route which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving or outputting which are both 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.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims recite a specifical technical data processing architecture rooted in computer technology, 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 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”).
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.
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 patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – transportation management – more specifically outputting an adjusted transportation route to a navigation system of a transportation means based on identified risks (i.e. transportation route planning). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of transportation planning/routing they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem, do not improve any of the underlying technology (processor, data storage, etc.), do not recite an improvement in another technology or technical field).
As discussed above, the claims merely output data (analysis signal, adjust route) wherein the non-functional intended use for the outputted data “to a navigation system for implemented directly…the at least one adjusted transportation route….”. This step is directed to insignificant post solution activity – mere data output. That the intended use of the output is to implement an adjusted route is non-functional descriptive material.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic 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 or human controlled). These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s transportation route planning in the general field of transportation planning/management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an 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. 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.
Regarding the recited large language model 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., 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 or human controlled) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is 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 or human controlled)” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the recited large language model utilized to generate structured information from unstructured 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 functions. 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.
Examiner suggests Applicant review the recently posted 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
As for Applicant’s argument that the invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem (i.e. real-time identification of critical vulnerabilities in logistic networks), the examiner respectfully disagrees. At best the argued ‘improvements’ are business improvements in the business problem of transportation route planning and in no way represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or computer network, do not represent an technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or another technical field.
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 generating and outputting an analysis signal (data) on adjusted transportation routes of a transportation network to a navigation system, wherein transportation routing is a fundamental economic practice. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “acquiring”, “analyzing”, “analyzing”, “generating”, “determining”, “minimizing” and “generating and outputting” 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 adjust transportation routes, as part of a transportation network, in order to minimize risk to critical transportation routes or links based on risk metrics.
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 or human controlled). 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 or human controlled). 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 or human controlled)," 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 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 or human controlled) 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 step of generating and outputting an analysis signal is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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