DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action is a final office action in response to Applicant’s communication received on 12/30/2025.
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 the Claims
Claims 21 and 31 have been amended. Claims 21, 24-31 34-40, and 42 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on 12/30/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the current claims are not directed to commercial or legal transactions, noting the freight bill has been removed from the claim in the current amendment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the subgrouping of commercial or legal interactions includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Here, it was said that the claimed steps describe a concept in the realm of commercial interactions (specifically sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). It was also said that, if taken more broadly, the recited abstract idea reasonably falls within the subgrouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (in that plans and schema are being developed to be following to transport and deliver goods, and this subgrouping encompasses following rules or instructions).
The recited limitations have to do with the logistics industry and transportation of goods between pickup points and a port (see paragraphs 2-3 and 194). The specification discusses that with the development of the economy, transportation industries are seeking increasingly high efficiency and accuracy. As a quantity of pick-up points and an amount of goods that need to be transported increase, transportation routes need to be planned to improve transportation efficiency. The specification also discusses that with the development of logistics industry, goods transportation is widely used in industry and life. High efficiency means that a quick response can be made, and a loading result can be output in a short time by using input data. Therefore, a logistics resource can be preferentially preempted, a delivery time can be shortened, and timely transportation and delivery of goods can be ensured. Accuracy means that an output loading result is valid, so that utilization of a container can be improved, and transportation costs can be reduced.
It is the examiner’s position that it is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to construe the goods transportation of the claims as not being for the purpose or benefit of people (noting the specification discusses of life, the logistics industry, need for goods to be transported, and costs in at least the cited paragraphs). It is also noted that a freight bill, per the specification, includes information on to-be-transported goods. While the term has been deleted from the claim, the claim does still recite to be transported goods. As understood in the art, logistics and the logistics industry are typically part of supply chain management and deal with movement of goods from origin to end user. Therefore, based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, the claim does recite limitations that reasonably fall within certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that even if the claim is about moving goods, it has no reference or relation to people; and further notes example 46 claims 2 and 3 regarding feeding livestock where goods are delivered to non-people.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that there is no relation to people or certain methods of organizing human activity. Please see discussion above. Further, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II., it is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Note the emphasis on the activity. Here, managing transportation of goods and logistics is a human activity. With regards to the reference to example 46, claims 2 and 3, the fact pattern in that sample specification and example claim set is significantly different than the instant application. It is important to note that each case turns on its own set of facts. Here, the instant claims and specification are about the transportation of goods in the logistics industry and example 46 is about livestock management. In example 46, the claims were viewed to recite abstract ideas falling within the mental process grouping at step 2A prong 1. At step 2A prong 2, it was the particulars of element (d) in both claim 2 (where a control signal was automatically sent to a feed dispenser to dispense a particular amount based on a specific analysis result) and claim 3 (automatically operate a sorting gate by the process sending a control signal to the sorting gate to route an animal to a pen based on the analysis result of the claim, where the control signal permits the animal to freely pass based on certain analysis results) that were considered to go beyond merely automating the abstract idea and controls in a particular way that is an “other meaningful improvement”. There are no such comparable limitations to these additional elements in the instant application.
Applicant references example 47, claim 3, in the argument, stating that it is an improvement to a technical field, and argues that integration into a practical application is not only for computer technology. The argument emphasizes example 46, and argues that if feeding livestock is a technical field than so is the transporting of goods.
First, per MPEP 2106.04(d)I. and 2106.05, it is agreed that the considerations relevant to whether additional element(s) integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application or whether the additional element(s) amount to an inventive concept are not limited to improvements to computers or computer technology. In applying step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, it is the additional elements of the claim that are evaluated, alone and in combination, in determining whether they provide an integration into a practical application or amount to an inventive concept.
In evaluating improvements to another technology or technical field, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) which discuss that a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification and then claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. 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.
Here, the claims obtain plans and schemas for the transportation of goods, with a step of transporting goods according to the plans. As currently recited, the additional elements are a processor in independent claim 31 executing programming instructions to implement the abstract idea as well as the “by the one or more processors” in claim 21, as well as the transporting the to-be-transported goods in both claims. As claimed, when evaluating the additional elements, alone and in combination and in view of the claim as a whole and the specification, this is not enough to confer eligibility. Please see discussion below at item 8.
Example 47, claim 3, differs from the instant application and claims. This example invention uses an artificial neural network (ANN) to identify or detect anomalies, and was found eligible at step 2A, prong 2, because the additional elements of the claimed invention reflect an improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. The background of the example specification specifically discusses this improvement to technology and claim 3 specifically reflects this disclosed improvement in the additional elements recited in the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
With respect to example 46, the claim was not found eligible because of feeding livestock as a technical field alone (noting that in claim 1, some aspects of livestock management were viewed to be part of the recited abstract idea of mental process). Rather (as discussed above) the way in which a dispenser and control gate were automatically controlled and operated based on analysis results, in combination with other additional elements of the claim, were viewed to provide a meaningful limitation and go beyond merely automating the recited abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations resolve technology problems and improve the function of existing good transport. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features quoted from claim 21 on page 15 of applicant’s response are limitations that fall within the recited abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The remarks reference the arguments presented 5/29/2024 on page 17. These 2024 remarks point to the background of the specification discussing a technical problem of goods transportation systems. It is stated that goods cannot be processed in parallel due to using an ant colony optimization algorithm to obtain a route scheme. This is further discussed in paragraph 279 of the specification, with other paragraphs also discuss the training offline simulation data offline. Currently, this is not commensurate in scope with the claim. To the extent the obtaining step includes wherein the fast loading model is trained using offline simulation data and a three dimensional loading algorithm, these appear outside the scope of the claim as currently recited. Nonetheless, as claimed, there are limited technical details in the claim as to how this is accomplished that would result in a practical application or an inventive concept. Bringing more technical features, such as details about training offline simulation data offline and the three-dimensional loading algorithm, may weigh towards eligibility.
Applicant argues that the transporting is not claimed at a high level of generality, but rather very specifically since it is performed according to the schemes of the claim and the schemes are not an existing process since there is no prior art. Further, Applicant argues that the transporting according to the target transportation scheme and the target goods allocation scheme goes beyond merely automating the abstract idea and the schemes are other meaningful limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claim is detailed with respect to the evaluating and obtaining of the target transportation scheme, these details fall within the recited abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.04, judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original). See also 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.
Further with regard to the transporting not being at a high level of generality, here once route schemes and predicted actual loading rates are obtained and each route scheme is evaluated to obtain a target route scheme (part of the recited abstract idea), the claim recites to transport the goods according to the plan (the target route scheme). The claim language and further the specification (e.g., paragraphs 195 and 249) do not include the particulars of the how the transporting is accomplished. This is an idea of a solution or outcome without details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See also MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) concerning examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool. One such example is In re Brown which generally uses a tool (scissors) once hair designs are assigned. Since the limitation generically recites an effect of the abstract idea, i.e., use the determined target schemes to transport the goods. This does not provide a meaningful limitation because this amounts to the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding “apply it”).
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 21, 24-31 34-40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One, independent claim 21, which is a method, and claim 31, which is substantially similar but an apparatus, recites an abstract idea of logistics management to include determining a transportation plan including a route plan and goods allocation plan for goods to be transported in a container. The limitations of claim 21 below recite an abstract idea:
A method for obtaining a transportation scheme, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of route schemes for goods transportation and a plurality of goods allocation scheme sets corresponding to each of the route schemes for goods transportation, wherein each of the route schemes for goods transportation comprise a transportation route for transporting to-be-transported goods, each of the goods allocation scheme sets comprising at least one goods allocation scheme, and each goods allocation scheme in a goods allocation scheme set corresponding to a route scheme for goods transportation is a scheme for allocating the to-be-transported goods to each transportation route in the corresponding route scheme for goods transportation;
obtaining, by using a fast loading model, predicted actual loading rates of each goods allocation scheme in the goods allocation scheme sets, wherein the fast loading model is trained using offline simulation data, the offline simulation data comprises a loading scheme calculated using a three-dimensional loading algorithm, and the predicted actual loading rates are predicted proportions of goods loaded into a container in a goods allocation scheme relative to a limit of the container; and
evaluating, using the predicted actual loading rates, each route scheme for goods transportation and each goods allocation scheme in the goods allocation scheme sets, to obtain a target transportation scheme, wherein the target transportation scheme comprises a target route scheme for goods transportation and a target goods allocation scheme corresponding to the target route scheme for goods transportation;
wherein the obtaining the plurality of route schemes for goods transportation and the plurality of goods allocation scheme sets corresponding to each of the route schemes for goods transportation comprises:
obtaining target freight information, wherein the target freight information comprises transportation node information and to-be-transported goods information, the transportation node information comprises a freight starting point, a freight ending point, and M pickup points, and the to-be-transported goods information comprises information about to-be- transported goods distributed at the M pickup points, wherein M is a positive integer;
obtaining the route schemes for goods transportation based on the transportation node information, wherein each transportation route comprises a freight starting point, a freight ending point, and N of the M pickup points, and each route scheme for goods transportation covers the M pickup points, wherein N is a positive integer and N<;M; and
allocating the to-be-transported goods for each transportation route in each route scheme for goods transportation, to obtain each goods allocation scheme in the first goods allocation scheme set corresponding to each route scheme for goods transportation; and
wherein the obtaining the route schemes for goods transportation based on the transportation node information comprises:
if an amount of historical route data is greater than a first threshold, initializing transfer hyperparameters of the M pickup points based on the historical route data, to obtain a hyperparameter matrix;
obtaining a transfer probability distribution based on the hyperparameter matrix and indicating a probability that a transportation route should be used, wherein the transfer probability distribution comprises a transfer probability of a container in a transportation route between the freight starting point and the M pickup points, between the freight ending point and the M pickup points, or between the M pickup points; and
obtaining each transportation route in each of the at least one route scheme for goods transportation based on the transfer probability distribution, to obtain the at least one route scheme for goods transportation.
The limitations above fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. Steps for logistics management, which are described in the claims and in Applicant’s specification, aimed at optimization and increasing efficiency reasonably fall within the subgrouping of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) – and more specifically sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Paragraph 0002 of Applicant’s original filed specification states, “This application relates to the logistics field…” Paragraphs 0003 and 0005 of Applicant's specification discuss the problem addressed by the invention stating, "With development of economy, transportation industries are seeking increasingly high efficiency and accuracy, and containers are especially primary vessels for transportation. As a quantity of pick-up points and an amount of goods that need to be transported increase, a transportation route needs to be planned to improve transportation efficiency." ([0003]) and "Embodiments of this application provide a method for determining a transportation scheme, a method for training a fast loading model, and a device that are used for goods transportation, to fast obtain a target transportation scheme, reduce transportation costs, and improve transportation efficiency especially when a transportation volume is large and a situation is complex" ([0005]). To address such problem in logistics from economic development, the claim can be interpreted as steps a transportation provider would perform in meeting the demands. The claimed steps therefore describe a concept in the realm of commercial interactions (specifically sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). If taken more broadly, this also can be found to be following rules or instructions as it pertains to the subgrouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (in that plans and schema are being developed to be following to transport and deliver goods).
Some of the limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mathematical concepts. With respect to the obtaining steps and sub-steps which do offer further details such as using a fast loading model, offline simulation, three-dimensional loading algorithm, initializing hyperparameters, determining and using probability distribution, these all encompass mathematical concepts.
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of a processor in independent claim 31 executing programming instructions to implement the abstract idea as well as the “by the one or more processors” in claim 21 are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and also generally links the abstract idea to a field of use or particular technological environment of execution on a computer. Independent claim 21 also suggests merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea with recitation of training a model and simulation. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking to a particular technological environment. Also, as explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the generic computer elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Finally, claim 21 and 31 recite transporting the to-be-transported good according to the target transportation scheme. This limitation generically recites an effect of the abstract idea, i.e., use the determined target schemes to transport the goods. This does not provide a meaningful limitation because this amounts to the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding “apply it”). Transporting is claimed at a high-level of generality and as mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. It noted the claim language and further the specification does not include the particulars of the how the transporting is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See also figure 1.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional element of a processor (independent claims 21 and 31) or suggestion of computer-implemented (independent claim 21) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and also generally links the abstract idea to a field of use or particular technological environment. Applicant’s specification (originally filed) also conveys that no more than a general-purpose computer is required at a high level of generality for performing the abstract idea (see paragraphs [0080], [0081], [0085], [0086] which require a processor perform the steps/implement the method). In addition, based on the recitation of limitations encompassing mathematical concepts, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that using a computer for its most basic function of performing calculations is considered well-understood, routine and conventional (see ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
Further, with regard to the additional element of transporting the to-be-transported good, as discussed above, this does not provide a meaningful limitation because this amounts to the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding “apply it”). The transporting is claimed at a high-level of generality and as mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See also figure 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Based on the reasons presented, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claims and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a narrower abstract idea by further including steps that encompass mathematical concepts such as initializing transfer hyperparameters (claim 24), clustering and performing sampling calculation (claim 25), using feature vectors (claims 26, 27), and calculating a score and clustering (claims 28, 29), and additional steps that encompass mental processes such as determining remaining goods not allocated (claim 30). Such steps also fall under the subject matter of economic principles and practices as they further narrow the concept of managing logistics.
Claim 42 recites outputting the target transportation scheme and the target goods allocation scheme which amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding extra-solution activity. See also MPEP 2106.05(d) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 31 and 34-40, directed to an apparatus, recite limitations similar to those recited in method claims 21, 24-30 and 42 and therefore the same analysis above with respect to claims 21, 24-30 and 42 also applies to these claims.
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625