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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on August 29, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The Forms PTO-1449 are signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because every box in the drawing should have a descriptive label on it (See Figure 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claim 13 is direct to a system. Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer implemented method for generating a rendezvous prediction model, the method comprising:
receiving, at a processor, vessel data for a plurality of vessels from one or more sources;
constructing, at the processor, a vessel trajectory for each vessel in the plurality of vessels based on the vessel data, each vessel trajectory comprising one or more trajectory segments;
identifying, at the processor, one or more identified trajectory segments of the plurality of constructed vessel trajectories based on an unstable speed detection corresponding to the one or more trajectory segments;
detecting, at the processor, a rendezvous between a first vessel and a second vessel of the plurality of vessels, based on the one or more identified trajectory segments;
storing the detected rendezvous and the determined type of the detected rendezvous in a vessel rendezvous history database in association with a first unique vessel identifier corresponding to the first vessel, a second unique vessel identifier corresponding to the second vessel, a location of the detected rendezvous and a time of occurrence of the detected rendezvous;
labeling a first vessel trajectory of the first vessel and a second vessel trajectory of the second vessel based on data stored in the vessel rendezvous history database; and
generating a rendezvous prediction model based on the labeled dataset, the rendezvous prediction model for predicting a rendezvous for a candidate vessel trajectory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a mathematical path modeling from data points (trajectory), statistical deviation analysis of velocity time series (unstable speed detection), geometric/spatial proximity computation (rendezvous detection), data classification (labeling) and machine learning training (model generation). The limitations also constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind such as observing vessel movement data, identify stops or speed changes, record meetings between vessels, categorize the type of meeting and use past patterns to predict future encounters. or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A computer implemented method for generating a rendezvous prediction model, the method comprising:
receiving, at a processor, vessel data for a plurality of vessels from one or more sources;
constructing, at the processor, a vessel trajectory for each vessel in the plurality of vessels based on the vessel data, each vessel trajectory comprising one or more trajectory segments;
identifying, at the processor, one or more identified trajectory segments of the plurality of constructed vessel trajectories based on an unstable speed detection corresponding to the one or more trajectory segments;
detecting, at the processor, a rendezvous between a first vessel and a second vessel of the plurality of vessels, based on the one or more identified trajectory segments;
storing the detected rendezvous and the determined type of the detected rendezvous in a vessel rendezvous history database in association with a first unique vessel identifier corresponding to the first vessel, a second unique vessel identifier corresponding to the second vessel, a location of the detected rendezvous and a time of occurrence of the detected rendezvous;
labeling a first vessel trajectory of the first vessel and a second vessel trajectory of the second vessel based on data stored in the vessel rendezvous history database; and
generating a rendezvous prediction model based on the labeled dataset, the rendezvous prediction model for predicting a rendezvous for a candidate vessel trajectory.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 13-19 and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons of claims 1-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights