Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 11/05/2025. Claims 1, 9, & 17 were amended and claims 2 & 10 were cancelled in a reply filed 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 3 – 9, & 11 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pp. 9 – 10, that the “amended claim improves computer functionality by reciting a specific technique that reduces the number of computational operations by computing edge weights for edges connected to the new node while maintaining previously computed edge weights for edges not connected to the new node,” similarly to Example 37 from the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which was “eligible because they reduced computational burden by using a specific graph structure that avoided exhaustive enumeration.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Claim 1 of Example 37 recites a specific manner of automatically displaying icons in a GUI based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, and thus providing an improvement to user interface technology for electronic devices. In particular, Claim 1 of Example 37 includes additional elements that, as a whole, integrates the recited mental process into a practical application by reciting a specific manner of automatically displaying icons comprising the additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. Therefore, Claim 1 of Example 37 is directed to an improved user interface, as opposed to a judicial exception.
This is in contrast with Applicant’s instant claims, which are directed to the judicial exception of optimizing the matching of loads to vehicles, as opposed to an improved user interface. Indeed, the instant claims and Example 37 have extremely different fact patterns. Examiner could not find any mention of Example 37 “using a specific graph structure,” as is asserted by Applicant. Nor could Examiner locate a description of the improvements which Applicant asserts are provided by the instant invention described in the instant specification. The instant specification, at paragraph [0031], states that the instant invention provides “a clear improvement over manual logistics planning, offering efficiencies in both the scope and speed of matching trucks and loads,” while paragraph [0032], states that the claims provide “a technical solution that not only reduces operational delays but also maximizes fleet utilization.”
Additionally, that the instant invention recites a selective edge weight computation with maintenance of unchanged weights does not preclude the instant claims from reciting an abstract idea. In fact, the selective edge weight computation with maintenance of unchanged weights-related steps in the instant claims are a mere analysis of possible various load-vehicle combinations – which of and in itself is abstract. Therefore, the assertion that the instant claims are patent eligible because they improve computer functionality, similar to Example 37, are found unpersuasive because the claims are directed to an improvement to the recited judicial exception itself, rather than to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 10, that the “improvement is also analogous to Example 38 titled “Quantization Compression for Images” from the 2019 Examples” because the “amended claim similarly recites a specific technique, namely selective edge weight computation with maintenance of unchanged weights, that reduces computational requirements and thereby improves computer operation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims of Example 38 are directed to a simulation which entails the detailed technical steps of a bilinear transformation to create a digital representation of an analog circuit. The claims of Example 38 are eligible because they do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interactions. In contrast, the instant invention is directed to optimizing the matching of loads to vehicles, and recites processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation, commercial interaction, or while managing relationships between people (including following rules or instructions). That the instant invention recites a selective edge weight computation with maintenance of unchanged weights does not preclude the instant claims from reciting an abstract idea. In fact, the selective edge weight computation with maintenance of unchanged weights-related steps in the instant claims are a mere analysis of possible various load-vehicle combinations – which of and in itself is abstract. The load-vehicle matching in the instant claims is similar to examples which have been identified by the courts to be directed to certain method of organizing human activity, as well as concepts relating to data comparisons that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work, which include ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739,1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit explained that concepts of collecting and analyzing information fall within the “realm of abstract ideas” because information is intangible, and “have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. (See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3dat 1351) (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without additional elements that provide an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 10 – 11, that “the amended claim recites a second technological improvement through the convergence threshold termination criterion, which limits computational resource use by preventing unnecessary iterations once optimization has substantially converged.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the termination of performing computations or analyzing information upon reaching a termination criterion applies equally to when the computations are abstract (e.g. a human will necessarily end manual calculations or performing excessive calculation iterations upon reaching a threshold termination criterion). Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that performing calculations or information analysis until a threshold termination criterion is reached is a part of the recited judicial exception.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 11 – 12, that because the instant claims provide “an unconventional approach that improves computer efficiency by preserving valid computational results from prior iterations,” provide “computational operation reduction,” and recite a threshold termination criterion for “limiting computational resource use,” that therefore the instant claims are “are directly analogous to claims found eligible in Example 47 titled "Using a Trained Neural Network to Identify and Separate Foreground and Background in Images" from the 2024 AI Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that instant claim 1 is similar to Example 47, or that instant claim 1 recites elements which integrate the recited judicial exception of optimizing the matching of loads to vehicles into a practical application. In particular, claim 3 of Example 47 uses an artificial neural network to detect whether a network traffic anomaly is associated with a malicious packet. When the network traffic anomaly is associated with a malicious packet, the artificial neural network can cause a network device to drop the malicious packet and block future traffic from the sender of the malicious packet. According to the background (i.e., specification), the invention of claim 3 of Example 47 provides an enhancement to network security by proactively remediating malicious network activity in real time, thus avoiding a delay involved in waiting for a network administrator. The steps of claim 3 of Example 47 reflect the improvement described in the background by using information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive steps to remediate the danger after detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets in real time. In contrast, instant claim 1 involves the matching of loads to vehicles. According to the instant specification, at paragraph [0031], the instant invention provides “a clear improvement over manual logistics planning, offering efficiencies in both the scope and speed of matching trucks and loads,” while paragraph [0032], states that the claims provide “a technical solution that not only reduces operational delays but also maximizes fleet utilization.” Therefore, the assertion that the instant claims are patent eligible because they improve computer functionality, similar to Example 47, are found unpersuasive because the claims are directed to an improvement to the recited judicial exception itself, rather than to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology.
Furthermore, as stated by the Court in Enfish, “the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. As noted infra, in Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computer-related § 101 cases we have issued in light of those Supreme Court decisions, it was clear that the claims were of the latter type—requiring that the analysis proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which asks if nevertheless there is some inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357–59. In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is not to an improvement to computer functionality itself, but “on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity” (e.g., optimizing load-truck matches).
Indeed, the purported improvements listed in the instant specification in Applicant’s remarks on Pg. 13 are entirely directed to “economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”: “matching trucks to loads on a substantial scale would involve prohibitive delays, heightened error rates, and an inability to respond to dynamically shifting inputs." The specification further explains that "integrating a new truck or load into an existing logistics plan without disrupting existing assignments is a significant technical obstacle" and that the disclosed solution “addresses this by recalculating assignments efficiently" through "adaptive recalibration" that "reduces operational delays.” Therefore, it is clear that the instant claims are directed to an improvement to the recited judicial exception of load-truck matching, which invokes generic computer components as a mere tool for implementation, rather to an improvement thereof.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 12 – 13, that the claims are similar to Example 39 from the 2019 Examples because “the amended claim is directed to a specific way of performing incremental optimization that improves the operation of the computer system for processing graph-structured optimization problems.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the preamble of the claim in Example 39 states that the claim is directed to training a neural network. As evidenced by the level of technical detail and particular training steps in Example 39, the end objective of the claim itself is a facial detection system that solves a technical problem and offers an improvement to previous methods of training neural networks for facial detection as provided in the specification of the example. The claim recites: 1) collecting a set of digital facial images from a database; applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image including mirroring, rotating, smoothing, or contrast reduction to create a modified set of digital facial images, creating a first training set comprising the collected set of digital facial images, the modified set of digital facial images, and a set of digital non-facial images, training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first training set and digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images after the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set. In Example 39, there are several training steps involved, including transforming the data, and retraining the model to eliminate false positives in a second round of training. In contrast, Applicant’s “incremental optimization” lacks the level of technical detail to evidence that the claim is directed to a new AI training method or to developing an improved method of training models. In fact, training steps are absent from the instant claims. Therefore, the instant claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality itself, but “on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity” e.g., proving a system and method which “reduces operational delays but also maximizes fleet utilization” (Applicant’s Specification, [0032]).
Applicant next argues, on pg. 13, that because the claims recite “thereby reducing a number of computational operations” and that “iterative adjusting is terminated "when a change in the at least one numeric value between successive iterations falls below a threshold, thereby limiting computational resource use,” that “the claim is directed to improving computer functionality rather than merely applying a generic computer to a business problem.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)) Here, not only is a purported improvement to computer functionality merely tacked on to the claims, but the instant specification is absent of a description of a reduction in a number of computational operations or a limiting of computational resource use. Therefore, the mere addition of the cited “whereby” clauses does not automatically shift the direction of the claims from an improvement to an economic task (as outlined above) to an improvement to computer functionality.
Applicant’s arguments on pp. 14 – 15, regarding Example 37 and assertions that the claims are directed to computer functionality improvements rather than to economic ones, have been fully considered and have been addressed in the above Examiner responses.
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, 3 – 9, & 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 9 – 16 are directed to a product Claims 17 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17 substantially recite: “receiving… an input representing a new truck for addition to a set of load-truck matches… wherein the input representing the new truck comprises at least one of: an origin location, a destination location, a departure time range, or a delivery time range; transforming… the input into new truck data in a standardized truck format; generating… a new load-truck match matching the new truck to at least one load based on the new truck data, the set of load-truck matches, and a set of global constraints… wherein generating the new load-truck match comprises: generating a graph data structure representing the set of load-truck matches, the graph data structure comprising nodes corresponding to individual loads and trucks, and edges representing potential matches between loads and trucks generating a new node corresponding to the new truck data evaluating each new edge between at least a subset of the nodes representing loads and the new node based on learned dependencies among features in the set of load- truck matches and the global constraints and iteratively adjusting edge weights to optimize at least one numeric value by selecting at least one new edge and rejecting other new edges, wherein the iteratively adjusting comprises: computing, for each iteration, edge weights for edges connected to the new node while maintaining previously computed edge weights for edges not connected to the new node; and terminating the iterative adjusting when a change in the at least one numeric value between successive iterations falls below a threshold; generating an output of multiple new edges for manual review, the output indicating information associated with each of the multiple new edges; transmitting the output to the client… for display; receiving, from the client… an indication of a selection of one of the multiple new edges or a rejection of the new edges; and adjusting… the set of load-truck matches… based on the indication.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass an optimization of the matching of loads to vehicles. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, & 17, as a whole, amounts to: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer elements of “server,” “via a graphical user interface displayed,” “client device,” “by a formatting engine of the server,” “by a multilayered graph neural network of the server,” “for display via the graphical user interface,” “from the client device,” and “by the server.” Claim 9 recites the additional generic computer components of “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations,” “by a server,” “via a graphical user interface displayed,” “at a client device,” “by a formatting engine of the server,” “by a multilayered graph neural network of the server,” “via the graphical user interface,” “from the client device,” and “by the server.” Claim 17 recites the additional generic computer components of “via a graphical user interface displayed,” “client device,” “by a formatting engine of the server,” “by a multilayered graph neural network of the server,” “from the client device,” and “by the server.” Claims 1, 9, & 17 also recite the additional elements of: “stored in a match data repository,” “stored in a constraint data repository,” “transmitting the output to the client device,” “thereby reducing a number of computational operations,” “thereby limiting computational resource use,” and “stored in a match data repository.”
The additional elements of “server,” “via a graphical user interface displayed,” “client device,” “by a formatting engine of the server,” “by a multilayered graph neural network of the server,” “for display via the graphical user interface,” “from the client device,” “by the server,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations,” “by a server,” and “via a graphical user interface displayed at a client device” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “thereby reducing a number of computational operations” and “thereby limiting computational resource use” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “stored in a match data repository,” “stored in a constraint data repository,” “transmitting the output to the client device,” and “stored in a match data repository,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs. 1 & 3 showing the additional elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The extrasolution activity of “stored in a match data repository,” “stored in a constraint data repository,” “transmitting the output to the client device,” and “stored in a match data repository,” is similar to functionality found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting “Electronic recordkeeping,” “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”), and “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the additional elements of: “server,” “via a graphical user interface displayed,” “client device,” “by a formatting engine of the server,” “by a multilayered graph neural network of the server,” “for display via the graphical user interface,” “from the client device,” “by the server,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations,” “by a server,” “via a graphical user interface displayed at a client device,” “stored in a match data repository,” “stored in a constraint data repository,” “transmitting the output to the client device,” and “stored in a match data repository” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3 – 8, 11 – 16, & 18 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “filtering interface” in claims 5, 13, & 20 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights