DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 24 February 2025 claiming benefit back to 23 August 2022.
Claims 1 – 13 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
In respect to claims 6 – 8, the claims recite, e.g., “a product classification assembly, configured to”, “a feature extraction assembly, configured to”, “a product clustering assembly, configured to”, and “a business model analysis assembly, configured to”, which are nonce terms, modified by functional language, and are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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.
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.
Claim 10 is not in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 10 recites a “computer storage medium” embodying various instructions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a “computer storage medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer storage medium”. In this instance, the specification provides no special definition with respect to the “computer storage medium” limiting the broadest reasonable interpretation to non-transitory media (see specification, para [00122]). As a result, claim 10 encompasses within its scope signals per se and is thus not statutory. Thus, claim 10 is non-statutory. (See In re. Nuijten, 500 F.3rd 1346, 1356-57; and www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/prec/fd2012_007692_precedential.pdf.)_
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of: A data processing method, comprising:
determining freight-rate data corresponding to each freight-rate product by processing a freight-rate data set and product basic information in a freight-rate system, wherein the product basic information comprises a product definition and product attributes;
for the freight-rate data of each freight-rate product and a rule corresponding to the freight-rate data, analyzing the freight-rate data of the freight-rate product, to determine values of each feature of the freight-rate product;
determining a value satisfying a preset threshold based on the values of each feature;
taking a feature corresponding to the value satisfying the preset threshold as a decision feature;
determining freight-rate products of the same product type, and aggregating the freight-rate products of the same product type; and
generating analysis reports corresponding to the freight-rate products of the same product type by processing a feature set of all the freight-rate products of the same product type and the freight-rate data of all the freight-rate products of the same product type.
These limitations (italicized and bolded), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers calculating freight-rates for products, determining values for features of products, comparing values to thresholds, aggregating like product types, and creating an analysis report, which is performing mathematical calculations, and as such encompasses mathematical concepts. See 2106.04(a)(2) I1.
Further, the claim limitations / mathematical calculations, data collection, and report generation, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper and cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary independent claim 1, the claim recites no additional features beyond the abstract idea per se. In respect to independent claim 6, it discloses a classification assembly, a extraction assembly, a clustering assembly, and a business model analysis assembly; however, these are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Independent claim 9 recites the additional element (in the preamble) of an electronic device, configured to run a program; however, this are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Independent claim 10 recites the additional element (in the preamble) of computer storage medium, comprising a stored program; however, this are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 2 – 5 and 11 – 13:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13 merely further describe the judicial exception;
Claim 11 merely further describes the collected data.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry2 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [00122] - [00124], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation3.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1 – 13 are not currently rejected over prior art.
The closest prior art of record includes Takagaki Y (JP 2001265864), which discloses a transportation fare calculation system for luggage transportation company, estimates actual transportation fare for each package based on number of goods and packages along with unit fare per package; Boyd et al. (U.S. 6,963,854), which discloses a target pricing system; Betancourt `(U.S 2008/0162241), which discloses a method and system for matching and monitoring freight loads; Benzinger. et al. (U.S 2008/0183512), which discloses a system and method for estimating seat value; Alkasimi et al. (U.S 8,615,422), which discloses an airline pricing system and method; Williams et al. (U.S 2015/0161636), which discloses a method and server for providing a set of price estimates, such as air fare price estimates; Benvenuti; et al. (U.S 2015/0310570), which discloses open pricing and pricing rules; Wagner et al. (U.S 2017/0061376), which discloses a measuring device and system for freight rate optimization; Tracy et al. (U.S 11,669,928), which discloses fare classes with obscured demand.
However, with respect to exemplary independent claim 1, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 See also Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016) “Information as such is an intangible... Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas…. In a similar vein, we 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. … And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis [internal citations omitted]”.
2 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
3 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
