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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed1/13/2026. Claims 1, 9 and 17 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/13/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “the claims do not recite managing interactions between people. Rather, the claims recite a specific technical method for determining which vehicle in a fleet is most likely to reach a specified location based on computed scores. This is a vehicle- matching problem that requires real-time computation based on location data, driver compliance data, and vehicle trajectory analysis. No human interaction is managed or organized by the claimed method; the method operates on vehicle telemetry data and driver regulatory compliance data to generate matching scores. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, even assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as an abstract idea (a point not conceded), the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The claims recite a specific technical solution to the problem of identifying which vehicle in a fleet of in-motion vehicles is most likely to arrive at a specified location within an expected timeframe. Specifically, the claims recite computing a first score based on an actual ETA calculated from the current location of the vehicle relative to the LOI. This is not merely data gathering or applying a generic concept to a technological environment. Instead, the claims recite computing actual travel times based on real-time vehicle position data, which represents a specific technical implementation for vehicle-to-load matching…. Moreover, recent guidance from the USPTO Appeals Review Panel confirms that claims involving computational steps are patent-eligible where they provide technical improvements. In Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025), the Appeals Review Panel vacated a § 101 rejection of claims directed to training machine learning models. The Panel held that although the claims recited mathematical calculations (computing an approximation of a posterior distribution), the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because, when evaluated as a whole, they integrated the mathematical concept into a practical application by providing technical improvements to how the machine learning model itself operates. Id. at 9-10. The Panel criticized the original Board's "overbroad reasoning" for "essentially equat[ing] any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm,"' and emphasized that "[e]xaminers and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." Id. at 9. Here, as in Desjardins, the claims recite computational steps-computing ETA scores, HOS scores, and direction scores-but these computations are integrated into a practical application that provides a specific technical solution for automated vehicle-to-load matching in freight visibility systems. ”, (see remarks , pg. 9-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for providing freight/vehicle visibility, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as an individual can utilize a database to review vehicle location and compute distance remaining and time and provide an ETA for a vehicle to a particular location. The computing elements such as “network, computing device of claim 1; medium, computer processor, network, computing device of claim 9; device, processor, network, computing device of claim 17” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 1/13/2026 are moot in light of the newly cited Millhouse.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for providing freight/vehicle visibility.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving a request, the request including a company identifier, an estimated time of arrival (ETA), and a location of interest (LOI); computing a first score based on an actual ETA of at least one vehicle associated with the company identifier, wherein the actual ETA is calculated based on a current location of the at least one vehicle relative to the LOI; computing a second score based on an hours of service value associated with a driver of the at least one vehicle; computing a third score based on a direction of the at least one vehicle; and aggregating the first, second, and third score to generate a total matching score” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (network, computing device of claim 1; medium, computer processor, network, computing device of claim 9; device, processor, network, computing device of claim 17) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (network, computing device of claim 1; medium, computer processor, network, computing device of claim 9; device, processor, network, computing device of claim 17). The network, computing device of claim 1; medium, computer processor, network, computing device of claim 9; device, processor, network, computing device of claim 17, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the medium in claims 10-16; device in claims 18-20, compass bearing in claims 5-8, 13-16 and 20; OSRM API in claims 8 and 16 , are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190212149 - hereinafter Ho) in view of Waliany et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190385121 - hereinafter Waliany) in view of Millhouse et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190164128 - hereinafter Millhouse).
Re. claim 1, Ho teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving a network request from a computing device, the network request including a company identifier, an estimated time of arrival (ETA), and a location of interest (LOI); [Ho; ¶19, ¶110 and ¶242 shows receiving from a computing device. Company identifier is shown by a provider attribute such as Fig. 11B and ¶25, ¶43 and ¶51. ETA is presented by ¶24, ¶83 and ¶108. While location is presented by ¶20 and ¶24].
computing a second score based on an hours of service value associated with a driver of the at least one vehicle; [Ho; shows an attribute value (second score) for trip attribute score calculation based on shift length hours of a driver, as shown in ¶54-56 and ¶61-¶64].
computing a third score based on a direction of the at least one vehicle; and [Ho; shows an attribute value (third score) based on direction/angular heading shown in ¶24 and ¶54-¶56].
aggregating the first, second, and third score to generate a total matching score. [Ho; shows a weighted sum final score (total matching score) for matching request attributes as shown in ¶26 and ¶53-¶57].
Ho doesn’t teach, Waliany teaches:
computing a first score based on an actual ETA of at least one vehicle associated with the company identifier; [Waliany; shown by history based accurate (actual) ETA of a vehicle record associated with an identified shop/service provider to improve accuracy and experience as shown by ¶28-¶29, ¶52 and ¶75].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Ho by including limitation(s) as taught by Waliany to include the above features in the invention of Ho. One would be motivated to modify Ho with the teachings of Waliany since “a move from heuristics to models allows the service coordination system 102 to greatly improve operational efficiency”. [Waliany; ¶74].
Ho doesn’t teach, Millhouse teaches:
[…] wherein the actual ETA is calculated based on a current location of the at least one vehicle relative to the LOI; [Millhouse; ¶31 and ¶35 shows identifying location of the truck by products inside the truck along with the shipping destination to determine the actual ETA for the truck to get to the shipping destination].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Ho by including limitation(s) as taught by Millhouse to include the above features in the invention of Ho. One would be motivated to modify Ho with the teachings of Millhouse since “efficiently and effective load unload merchandise at a distribution center, warehouse, or retail store”. [Millhouse; ¶11].
Re. claim 2, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 1.
Ho teaches:
wherein the LOI comprises a latitude and longitude pair. [Ho; ¶24-¶25].
Re. claim 3, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 1.
Ho teaches:
generating a time window using the actual ETA and the current time, [Ho; ¶73 shows taking in consideration any delays to process the time window such as “ETA's late in the time window—Suppose when Trip 101 is inserted onto Route 5001 at Scheduling Cycle 2000, the ETA to make the pick is in the first 5 minutes of the 30 minute pick window. But at Scheduling Cycle 3001, Trip 535's pick is inserted before trip 101's pick as the best constructive step. Scheduling Trip 535's Pick onto Route 5001 pushes Trip 101's Pick ETA to the last minute of its legal pick window. This is perfectly legal, but on the day of service, there is no margin for delay. If making any of the preceding stops before Trip 101's pick causes a delay, whether by traffic congestion or by longer than planned load or unload time, Trip 101 will be picked up late. Clients who are picked up late complain to the service provider. ETA's are never completely set until after the last scheduling cycle. ETA's late in their windows are more at risk of being late on the day of service”].
determining if the estimated ETA is within the time window, and generating the first score based on determining if the estimated ETA is within the time window. [Ho; ¶24-¶26, ¶45, ¶73, ¶83].
Ho doesn’t teach, Waliany teaches:
wherein computing the first score comprises retrieving an actual ETA of the at least one vehicle using a current location of the at least one vehicle and the LOI, [Waliany; shown by history based accurate (actual) ETA of a vehicle record associated with an identified shop/service provider to improve accuracy and experience as shown by ¶28-¶29, ¶52 and ¶75]. Please see motivation combine Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 4, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 1.
Ho teaches:
wherein computing the second score comprises determining if the {predicted} ETA falls within a cycle time represented in the hours of service of the driver. [Ho; ¶73, ¶77 and ¶83].
Ho doesn’t teach, Waliany teaches:
[…] actual ETA […]; [shown by history based accurate (actual) ETA of a vehicle record associated with an identified shop/service provider to improve accuracy and experience as shown by ¶28-¶29, ¶52 and ¶75]. Please see motivation combine Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 5, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 1.
Ho teaches:
wherein computing the third score comprises:
retrieving historical location data for the at least one vehicle; [Ho; ¶25 and ¶69].
generating a plurality of compass bearings based on the historical location data; [Ho; angular heading, ¶24-¶25, ¶30 and ¶83].
comparing each of the plurality of compass bearings to a current compass bearing of the at least one vehicle; and [Ho; ¶24-¶25, ¶30 and ¶83].
using results of the comparing to generate the third score. [Ho; ¶24 and ¶54-¶56].
Re. claim 6, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 5.
Ho teaches:
wherein generating a plurality of compass bearings based on the historical location data comprises sampling the historical location data to obtain a set of coordinates data and generating the plurality of compass bearings based on the set of coordinates. [Ho; ¶24-¶25, ¶30 and ¶83].
Re. claim 7, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 5.
Ho teaches:
wherein generating a plurality of compass bearings based on the historical location data comprises computing the plurality of compass bearings based on linear lines between respective vehicle locations and the LOI. [Ho; trip heading/direction lines – Fig. 5 and Fig. 8, ¶24-¶25, ¶30, ¶35 and ¶83].
Re. claim 9,
Medium of claim 9 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches Medium as shown in ¶239, processor in ¶241.
Re. claim 10,
Medium of claim 10 substantially mirrors the method of claim 2.
Re. claim 11,
Medium of claim 11 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Re. claim 12,
Medium of claim 12 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 13,
Medium of claim 13 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Re. claim 14,
Medium of claim 14 substantially mirrors the method of claim 6.
Re. claim 15,
Medium of claim 15 substantially mirrors the method of claim 7.
Re. claim 17,
Device of claim 17 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1, and Ho further teaches processor in ¶241.
Re. claim 18,
Device of claim 18 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Re. claim 19,
Device of claim 19 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 20,
Device of claim 20 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse in view of Thakur et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170344941 - hereinafter Thakur).
Re. claim 8, Ho in view of Waliany in view of Millhouse teaches method of claim 5.
Ho teaches:
wherein generating a plurality of compass bearings based on the historical location data comprises using an {routes} to compute distances between coordinates in the historical location data and coordinates of a destination and determining if the at least one vehicle is moving toward the LOI. [Ho; ¶24-¶25, ¶30, ¶35 and ¶83]
Ho doesn’t teach, Thakur teaches
[…] Open Source Routing Machine (OSRM) API […]; [Thakur; ¶21, ¶24-¶25 and 103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Ho by including limitation(s) as taught by Thakur to include the above features in the invention of Ho. One would be motivated to modify Ho with the teachings of Thakur since “benefits would result from further processing that identifies those of the segments that are repetitive or routine, and hence generally predictable for use in the matching”. [Thakur; ¶88].
Re. claim 16,
Medium of claim 16 substantially mirrors the method of claim 8.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628