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 .
Application Status
Claims 7-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 My 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a routing command subsystem configured to…”, “first input device configured to…”, “second input device configured to…”, “a third input device configured to…”, and “a fourth input device configured to…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim recites determine a first transportation cost, the first transportation cost based on the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; determine a second transportation cost, the second transportation cost based on the fourth factor and two or more of the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; make a cost decision, the cost decision determining whether the first transportation cost or the second transportation cost is lower; and plan a transportation route based on the cost decision. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a command subsystem implemented by at least one processor and a memory”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as payload data, transporter data (i.e., transporter location(s), supply data, demand data, driver duty status, a number of service hours, etc.), could determine a first transportation cost, the first transportation cost based on the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; determine a second transportation cost, the second transportation cost based on the fourth factor and two or more of the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; make a cost decision, the cost decision determining whether the first transportation cost or the second transportation cost is lower; and plan a transportation route based on the cost decision. The mere nominal recitation of “the command subsystem is implemented by at least one processor and a memory” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim recite the additional limitations/elements of a first input device at a supply node, the first input device configured to record a supply factor, a second input device at a demand node, the second input device configured to record a demand factor, and a third input device associated with a transporter, the third input device configured to record a transporter factor, a fourth input device, the fourth input device configured to record a fourth factor, the fourth factor being one or more of an alternate supply factor, an alternate demand factor, and an alternate transporter factor; a routing command subsystem; one or more processors, a memory, server. The recording steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., recording data (supply data, demand data, transporter data, and alternate data) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The first, second, third, and fourth input devices are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a routing command subsystem; one or more processors, a memory, and server are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the recording step and the other additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 8-15 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (US 20190206007 A1) in view of Clarke et al (US 20160335593 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Leach disclose a system for transportation of a payload (see at least [abstract]), the system comprising: a routing command subsystem configured to control transportation of the payload (see at least [abstract], [0013], and [0020]), the routing command subsystem configured to be communicably coupled to: a first input device at a supply node (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]), the first input device configured to record a supply factor(see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]), a second input device at a demand node (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]), the second input device configured to record a demand factor (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]), and a third input device associated with a transporter (see at least [0013] and [0020]), the third input device configured to record a transporter factor (see at least [0013] and [0020]), a fourth input device, the fourth input device configured to record a fourth factor (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]), the fourth factor being one or more of an alternate supply factor, an alternate demand factor, and an alternate transporter factor (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]).
However, leach does not specifically disclose wherein the routing command subsystem is configured to: automatically determine a first transportation cost, the first transportation cost based on the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; automatically determine a second transportation cost, the second transportation cost based on the fourth factor and two or more of the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; automatically make a cost decision, the cost decision determining whether the first transportation cost or the second transportation cost is lower; and automatically plan a transportation route based on the cost decision, wherein the routing command subsystem is implemented by at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory being located on a server.
Clarke teaches wherein the routing command subsystem is configured to: automatically determine a first transportation cost (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]), the first transportation cost based on the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]); automatically determine a second transportation cost (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]), the second transportation cost based on the fourth factor and two or more of the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]); automatically make a cost decision, the cost decision determining whether the first transportation cost or the second transportation cost is lower (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]); and automatically plan a transportation route based on the cost decision (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]), wherein the routing command subsystem is implemented by at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory being located on a server (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Leach, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clarke wherein the routing command subsystem is configured to: automatically determine a first transportation cost, the first transportation cost based on the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; automatically determine a second transportation cost, the second transportation cost based on the fourth factor and two or more of the supply factor, the demand factor, and the transporter factor; automatically make a cost decision, the cost decision determining whether the first transportation cost or the second transportation cost is lower; and automatically plan a transportation route based on the cost decision, wherein the routing command subsystem is implemented by at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one processor and the at least one memory being located on a server. This would be done to efficiently complete transportation of cargo (see Clarke para 0003).
With respect to claim 8, Leach discloses wherein the fourth factor represents an additional supply node, an additional transporter, an additional transportation route, or an additional demand node (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 9, Leach discloses wherein one or more of the supply factor and the alternate supply factor are based on a predicted supply availability (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 10, Leach discloses wherein one or more of the demand factor and the alternate demand factor are based on a predicted demand availability (see at least [0011-0018], [0020-0026], [0028-0029], and [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 11, Leach discloses wherein one or more of the supply factor, the alternate supply factor, the demand factor, and the alternate demand factor are based on a transporter docking site availability (see at least [0013-0017], [0022], [0026], and [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 12, Leach do not specifically disclose wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected time that the transporter will be located at a loading site or an unloading site.
Clarke teaches wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected time that the transporter will be located at a loading site or an unloading site (see at least [0064], [0071], [0075], [0078], [0110], and [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Leach, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clarke wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected time that the transporter will be located at a loading site or an unloading site. This would be done to efficiently complete transportation of cargo (see Clarke para 0003).
With respect to claim 13, Leach do not specifically disclose wherein the fourth factor is based on a transportation mileage cost.
Clarke teaches wherein the fourth factor is based on a transportation mileage cost (see at least [0007], [0054], [0061], [0068], and [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Leach, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clarke wherein the fourth factor is based on a transportation mileage cost. This would be done to efficiently complete transportation of cargo (see Clarke para 0003).
With respect to claim 14, Leach do not specifically disclose wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected transport time.
Clarke teaches wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected transport time (see at least [0064], [0071], [0075], [0078], [0110], and [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Leach, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clarke wherein the fourth factor is based on an expected transport time. This would be done to efficiently complete transportation of cargo (see Clarke para 0003).
With respect to claim 15, Leach do not specifically disclose wherein the routing command subsystem is further configured to permit a user to override the cost decision.
Clarke teaches wherein the routing command subsystem is further configured to permit a user to override the cost decision (see at least [0007], [0009], [0030], [0053-0054], [0056], [0068], [0070-0072], [0080], [0139], and [Fig. 4-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Leach, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clarke wherein the routing command subsystem is further configured to permit a user to override the cost decision. This would be done to efficiently complete transportation of cargo (see Clarke para 0003).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights