DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 1, 4, and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-9 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 6: “As claimed, data is retrieved and stored, then subsequently, via the processor of the transportation management system, one or more surcharges are calculated to thereby improve the functioning of the carrier's transportation management system (TMS), which traditionally excludes any feature of a pricing modification after quote acceptance and during transport. In this manner the carrier's system can then provide a newly calculated travel cost, and such data is retrieved and used in the calculations in real time to ongoingly calculate the updated cost as needed. The invention does not apply to "all" data and "all" computer systems. The base claims are directed narrowly to improvements in the functioning of the transportation management system of the carrier. This is not a "fundamental economic practice" performed on a computer but rather is transforming and improving the management system, i.e., computer.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the calculation of surcharges and travel cost is the abstract idea, and it’s not improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Additionally, Paragraph [0004] of the Specification describes that surcharges such as fuel surcharge can be added post-quote to begin with. The claim provides different type of surcharges being added after quote acceptance and during transport which is improvement to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Pages 6-7: “Nonetheless, base claims 1, 4 and 7 have been amended to further recite the use of the transportation management system's processor within the body of the claim, and not just the preamble. Further, it is noted within the claim the limitation of the communication between the processing transportation management system and the source of the API-pushed surcharges. The preamble and body tie every step to "a transportation management system (TMS) of a carrier," which the specification describes as software interfacing with real-time sensor and API data ([0033], [0039]-[0040]). Accordingly, this is not generic commercial transaction-it's a special-purpose logistics platform. The claimed steps are performed within a specialized TMS that ingests real-time external data streams (weather, construction, accident feeds) and automatically modifies in-transit shipment cost data. This is not a generic financial calculation but an improvement to the operation of the TMS itself, as claimed. The base claims (1, 4 and 7) explicit requirements regarding the TMS and its real-time communication and access to impact information sources go beyond mental processes since humans cannot manually retrieve, parse, and apply multi-source live APIs at computer speeds. The claim uses real-time machine execution of data acquisition and processing steps that meaningfully limit the abstract concept to a technological implementation, and the claim expressly recites that implementing the surcharges "thereby improves said transportation management system." As in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc, 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) we look to whether the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology." Therefore, an improved TMS being claimed, Step 1 is satisfied.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because as currently written, the claim only recites TMS including a processor which is merely a generic computer recited at a high level of generality. The claim provides the improvement, as described above, is in the calculation of the type of surcharge, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 7: “In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a patent was upheld for a computer memory system connectable to processor and having programmable operational characteristics based on characteristics of the processor directed to improved computer memory system, not to abstract idea of categorical data storage, and, thus, the patent was directed to patent-eligible subject matter, where claims did not merely recite all types and all forms of categorical data storage; rather, they focused on specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities. This is in line with the claimed steps here. The instant invention as claimed applies only to the TMS and not for all transaction systems and is limited to the practical application of improving the functioning therefore by integrating real-time data into "live" billing. Here, live billing during transport is an inventive concept and is applied and limited to the TMS, i.e. the live billing within the TMS is a limited, practical application.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the improvement in the claim is about the way surcharge is calculated and overall, this is merely having a computer running an improved way of calculating surcharges. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-9 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (methods for pricing transportation service) and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable medium for pricing transportation service) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-9, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
In a transportation management system of a carrier, …, a computer-implemented method for pricing transportation service, comprising the steps of:
receiving a bid from a shipper;
quoting said bid;
pricing a total travel cost to said shipper for transporting a load by …, wherein the step of pricing further comprises the steps of:
determining an initial travel cost;
after the step of quoting said bid, after acceptance and during transport of said load, accessing, in real-time, impact information relating to potential changes in speed of said vehicle, said impact information retrieved from …in communication with …, wherein said impact information includes weather impact data and infrastructure impact data retrieved and stored from a web service, wherein said weather impact data includes weather-related elements which impact said vehicle, said weather-related elements determined by accessing weather reports to thereby form a weather delay surcharge (WSC), and wherein said infrastructure impact data includes construction and accident-related delays, said construction and accident-related delays determined by accessing agency reports to thereby form an infrastructure delay surcharge (ISC) and major accident related delay surcharge (ASC);
calculating, via … in …, either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC provided said impact information is present;
displaying either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC to said carrier if present;
implementing either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC into said initial travel cost if present, thereby forming a total travel cost, wherein said total travel cost is greater than said initial travel cost, thereby improving said transportation management system;
displaying said total travel cost.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as sales activities. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “said transportation management system including a processor”, “a vehicle”, “a source”, “said transportation management system”, and “said processor”. The additional elements “vehicle” and “a source” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “further comprising the step of billing said shipper for said load inclusive of said total travel cost” in Claim 2 and by defining “wherein said initial travel cost is determined based on a per mile rate per trip calculation plus a fuel surcharge price” in Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the following limitations:
For a transportation management system of a carrier, …, … to perform the steps of:
receiving a bid from a shipper;
quoting said bid;
pricing a total travel cost to said shipper for transporting a load by …, wherein the step of pricing further comprises the steps of:
determining an initial travel cost;
after the step of quoting said bid, after acceptance and during transport of said load, accessing, in real-time, impact information relating to potential changes in speed of said vehicle, said impact information retrieved from … in communication with …, wherein said impact information includes weather impact data and infrastructure impact data retrieved and stored from a web service, wherein said weather impact data includes weather-related elements which impact said vehicle, said weather-related elements determined by accessing weather reports to thereby form a weather delay surcharge (WSC), and wherein said infrastructure impact data includes construction and accident-related delays, said construction and accident-related delays determined by accessing agency reports to thereby form an infrastructure delay surcharge (ISC) and major accident related delay surcharge (ASC);
calculating, via … in said transportation management system, either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC provided said impact information is present;
displaying either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC if present;
implementing either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC into said initial travel cost if present, thereby forming a total travel cost, wherein said total travel cost is greater than said initial travel cost, thereby improving said transportation management system;
displaying said total travel cost.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 4 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as sales activities. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 4 recites additional elements – “said transportation management system including a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium with stored contents that cause one or more computing devices”, “a vehicle”, “a source”, “said transportation management system”, and “said processor”. The additional elements “vehicle” and “a source” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 6 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 4 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 4 such as by defining “further comprising the step of billing said shipper for said load inclusive of said total travel cost” in Claim 5 and by defining “wherein said initial travel cost is determined based on a per mile rate per trip calculation plus an energy price” in Claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the following limitations:
In a transportation management system of a carrier, …, a computer-implemented method for pricing transportation service, comprising the steps of:
receiving a bid from a shipper;
quoting said bid;
using …, pricing a total travel cost to said shipper for transporting a load by …, wherein the step of pricing further comprises the steps of:
determining an initial travel cost;
after the step of quoting said bid, after acceptance and during transport of said load, accessing, in real-time, impact information relating to potential changes in speed of said vehicle, said impact information retrieved from … in communication with …, wherein said impact information includes weather impact data and infrastructure impact data retrieved and stored from a web service, wherein said weather impact data includes weather-related elements which impact said vehicle, said weather-related elements determined by accessing weather reports to thereby form a weather delay surcharge (WSC), and wherein said infrastructure impact data includes construction and accident-related delays, said construction and accident-related delays determined by accessing agency reports to thereby form an infrastructure delay surcharge (ISC) and major accident related delay surcharge (ASC);
calculating, via … in said transportation management system, either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC provided said impact information is present;
displaying either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC on said … if present;
implementing either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC into said initial travel cost if present, thereby forming a total travel cost, wherein said total travel cost is greater than said initial travel cost, thereby improving said transportation management system;
displaying said total travel cost on said ....
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 7 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as sales activities. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites additional elements – “said transportation management system including a processor”, “a mobile device”, “a vehicle”, “a source”, “said transportation management system”, and “said processor”. The additional elements “vehicle” and “a source” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, quoting, pricing, determining, accessing, calculating, implementing, and presenting surcharges and total travel cost by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for implementing surcharges in trucking industry amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 9 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 7 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 7 such as by defining “further comprising the step of billing said shipper for said load inclusive of said total travel cost” in Claim 8 and by defining “wherein said initial travel cost is determined based on a per mile rate per trip calculation plus an energy price” in Claim 9.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-9 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1, 4, and 7, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 4, and 7 in their entirety; and in particular, “after the step of quoting said bid, after acceptance and during transport of said load, accessing, in real-time, impact information relating to potential changes in speed of said vehicle, said impact information retrieved from a source in communication with said transportation management system, wherein said impact information includes weather impact data and infrastructure impact data retrieved and stored from a web service, wherein said weather impact data includes weather-related elements which impact said vehicle, said weather-related elements determined by accessing weather reports to thereby form a weather delay surcharge (WSC), and wherein said infrastructure impact data includes construction and accident-related delays, said construction and accident-related delays determined by accessing agency reports to thereby form an infrastructure delay surcharge (ISC) and major accident related delay surcharge (ASC)” and “implementing either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC into said initial travel cost if present, thereby forming a total travel cost, wherein said total travel cost is greater than said initial travel cost, thereby improving said transportation management system” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 4 and 7.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be McCandless in view of HARRIS and Fain. McCandless teaches systems and methods for dynamically facilitating shipping agreements. McCandless also pre-acceptance dynamic quoting. HARRIS teaches a system and method for vehicle delivery tracking service. Fain teaches a system and method for automating tracking and managing individuals, vehicles, fleets of vehicles, and/or information. However, as described in Applicant’s Remarks, McCandless in view of HARRIS and Fain fails to disclose real-time surcharge calculation performed after a quote is accepted and during transport using externally sourced weather and infrastructure data to generate specific compensatory surcharges (WSC/ISC/ASC) that are then automatically implemented into an existing, previously-priced shipment within a carrier's transportation management system. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations of “after the step of quoting said bid, after acceptance and during transport of said load, accessing, in real-time, impact information relating to potential changes in speed of said vehicle, said impact information retrieved from a source in communication with said transportation management system, wherein said impact information includes weather impact data and infrastructure impact data retrieved and stored from a web service, wherein said weather impact data includes weather-related elements which impact said vehicle, said weather-related elements determined by accessing weather reports to thereby form a weather delay surcharge (WSC), and wherein said infrastructure impact data includes construction and accident-related delays, said construction and accident-related delays determined by accessing agency reports to thereby form an infrastructure delay surcharge (ISC) and major accident related delay surcharge (ASC)” and “implementing either of said WSC, said ISC or said ASC into said initial travel cost if present, thereby forming a total travel cost, wherein said total travel cost is greater than said initial travel cost, thereby improving said transportation management system”.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 4, and 7, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1, 4, and 7, claims (2-3), (5-6), and (8-9) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628