DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 2A and 2B are not listed or mentioned in the description, and instead are described as a single fig. 2;
In fig. 9, reference number 925 is not mentioned in the description;
Reference number 945 is mentioned in the description but is not included in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figs. 2A and 2B are not listed or mentioned in the description, and instead are described as a single fig. 2;
In fig. 9, reference number 925 is not mentioned in the description;
Reference number 945 is mentioned in the description but is not included in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one computer system"; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Without proper antecedent basis, it would not be clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention what qualities or properties a computer system would need to comprise in order to be considered a “the at least one computer system” as claimed. Therefore, claim 16 and corresponding dependent claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 16, the claim falls under a statutory category as it recites a method including at least one step.
Step 2a) Prong One: Claim 16 recites a judicial exception. The claim recites:
“collecting input data for vessel characteristics, cargo and container loading and off-loading, cargo and container loading conveyance, and weather-route calculations, and … conduct[ing] a validity and integrity check of the data;
upon passing the validity and integrity of the data, conducting preliminary calculations to optimize the planned route of travel for the at least one mothership vessel and at least one deployable and releasable vessels carried on the mothership vessel, rendezvous points for the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels, and release points for the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels;
the method further includes the step of applying at least one mathematical model to solve optimizing the cost and pace of moving cargo and containers across a body of water, further applying modifiers associated with at least one or more of time, space, materials, order priority, and support schedules.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Claim 16 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites an element of “transferring that data to the at least one computer system to conduct a validity and integrity check of the data”. The step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transferring data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity. Other than reciting nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the at least one computer system” language, the claim encompasses obtaining data for conducting a validity and integrity check, which is understood to be a simple judgment as the “conducting” is recited at a high level of generality. The mere recitation of at least one computer system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. 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. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2b: Claim 16 is ineligible, as the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of “transferring that data to the at least one computer system to conduct a validity and integrity check of the data” is not considered to be more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicates that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claimed element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 17-20 do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea, and merely recite additional abstract steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record Fisher ’034 (WO 2018/157034 A1) discloses deep-sea and short-sea vessels for transport of goods in an ocean network.
For example, on page 7 lines 1-11 of the provided copy, Fisher ‘034 discloses simultaneously unloading and loading containers, for example, while a first set of short-sea vessels float off the deep-sea vessel enroute to one or more destination ports, a second set of short-sea vessels carrying cargo for outbound are awaiting arrival of the deep-sea vessel and immediately float onto the same deep-sea vessel for immediate departure.
In fig. 7A-7D and from page 8 line 28 to page 9 line 4 of the provided copy, Fisher ‘034 discloses an example sequence of the deep-sea vessel 100 discharging the short-sea vessels, including submerging into the ocean so as to allow short-sea vessels to become in liquid communication with the water as to allow the short-sea vessels to easily float off the deep-sea vessel, where once discharged, these short-sea vessels may have their own independent propulsion system to allow them to independently sail into their desired port.
See additionally the art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure listed below.
However, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not explicitly disclose a logistics manager program operationally disposed on the at least one computer processor with the at least one memory storage medium, the logistics manager program adapted to calculate a route and pace of travel to optimize at least the cost of transporting cargo and containers along at least one leg from at least one port facility to the mothership vessel traversed by at least one of the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels, at least one leg wherein the mothership vessel traverses a body of water while carrying at least one of the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels, and at least one leg traversed by at least one of the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels from the mothership vessel toward at least one port facility;
the logistics manager program further adapted to apply at least one or more risk modifiers, the group of risk modifiers including spatial, temporal, material, financial, and environmental values from which to optimize supply chain velocity and at least the cost and speed of transporting cargo and containers along each leg, the modifiers constraining at least one operational domain for the vessels; and
the logistics manager program updating the selected route and pace of travel incrementally and in response to voluntary and involuntary changes in at least one or more of the speed and direction of travel of the vessels.
Similarly, regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not explicitly disclose wherein the logistics manager program calculates with at least one mathematical model a route and pace of travel to optimize at least the cost of transporting cargo and containers across a body of water;
calculating at least one rendezvous point along at least one leg from at least one port facility to a mothership vessel traversed by at least one of the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels;
updating the selected route and pace of travel incrementally and in response to voluntary and involuntary changes in at least one or more of the speed and direction of travel of the mothership vessel and the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels;
calculating at least one leg wherein the mothership vessel traverses a body of water while carrying at least one of the deployable and retrievable vessels to at least one release point;
updating in the logistics manager program the selected route and pace of travel incrementally and in response to voluntary and involuntary changes in at least one or more of the speed and direction of travel of the mothership vessel;
calculating at least one leg from the mothership vessel to at least one release point for at least one port facility for the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels; and
selecting a route and pace of travel incrementally and in response to voluntary and involuntary changes in at least one or more of the speed and direction of travel of the mothership vessel and the at least one deployable and retrievable vessels.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fisher ’034 (WO 2018/157034 A1) teaches deep-sea and short-sea vessels for transport of goods in an ocean network.
Evans (US 9,928,474 B1) teaches a mobile base utilizing transportation units for delivering items.
Feng (CN 105775054 A) teaches an ant colony type dynamic overflowing oil recycling unmanned airship system and oil spill recovery method thereof.
Levander (EP 2643208 B1) teaches a floating cargo carrying marine vessel and a method of loading and offloading such.
Trautwein (WO 2015/018822 A1) teaches a carrier ship having a cargo space that can be flooded.
Eide (KR 20120067357 A) teaches an offshore equipment deploying and retrieving vessel.
Jegers (US 2008/0213067 A1) teaches a method and system for transferring cargo.
Fisher ‘873 (US 2002/0078873 A1) teaches a system for the collection and distribution of ocean cargo.
Kossa (US 3,934,530 A) teaches a transport vessel for floating onloading and offloading of cargo.
Cushing (US 3,823,681 A) teaches a barge carrying transport vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665