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 the Claims
The Amendment filed on 08/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-22 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 are amended. Claims 8 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new. This Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. Examiner has made note that the Applicant has integrated previously allowable subject matter (Claims 8-10 and 18-20) into the amended independent claims.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended language in the claims still recites abstract ideas with the use of generic computing elements to perform generic computing functions. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it still recites subject matter that can be practically performed by a human in the human mind and/or with pen/paper, or with the use of a generic computer. Examiner recommends that any improvements to the technology or additional elements that recite significantly more and/or go beyond the abstract idea, that they be actively reflected in the claim language.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 9-10, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are directed to the abstract idea of route optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites receiving, a change request for a route plan for delivering a plurality of orders from a distribution center to a plurality of physical stores, wherein the route plan comprises one or more constraints, wherein the change request is subject to a scenario specification and a load feasibility specification, and wherein the scenario specification indicates (i) whether a route start time is fixed or flexible, and (ii) whether a sequence of stops is fixed or flexible; conducting a pallet check based on the load feasibility specification for violations of constraints, identification errors, and temperature ranges; determining an updated route plan based on whether the change request for the route plan is a feasible route based on the scenario specification and the load feasibility specification, based on whether the route start time is flexible, based on the pallet check, and based on a distance matrix indicating distances between stores in accordance with multipliers representing traffic patterns; and outputting the updated route plan when the change request for the route plan under the scenario specification is a feasible route, and, when the route start time is flexible, outputting an updated route start time, to cause delivering of the plurality of orders from the distribution center to the plurality of physical stores according to the updated route plan, and when the route start time is flexible, according to the updated route start time.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, vehicle and an application programming interface. The one or more processors, one or more non- transitory computer readable media, vehicle and an application programming interface are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, vehicle, an application programming interface and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0019-0026. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 11-17 and 19-20, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are directed to the abstract idea of route optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 11, claim 11 recites receiving, a change request for a route plan for delivering a plurality of orders from a distribution center to a plurality of physical stores, wherein the route plan comprises one or more constraints, wherein the change request is subject to a scenario specification and a load feasibility specification, and wherein the scenario specification indicates (i) whether a route start time is fixed or flexible, and (ii) whether a sequence of stops is fixed or flexible; conducting a pallet check based on the load feasibility specification for violations of constraints, identification errors, and temperature ranges; determining an updated route plan based on whether the change request for the route plan is a feasible route based on the scenario specification and the load feasibility specification, based on whether the route start time is flexible, based on the pallet check, and based on a distance matrix indicating distances between stores in accordance with multipliers representing traffic patterns; and outputting the updated route plan when the change request for the route plan under the scenario specification is a feasible route, and, when the route start time is flexible, outputting an updated route start time, to cause delivering of the plurality of orders from the distribution center to the plurality of physical stores according to the updated route plan, and when the route start time is flexible, according to the updated route start time.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 12-17 and 19-20 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, vehicle and an application programming interface. The one or more processors, vehicle, one or more non- transitory computer readable media and an application programming interface are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, vehicle, an application programming interface and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0019-0026. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 11 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 21-22, they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 21-22 are directed to the abstract idea of route optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 21, claim 21 recites receive a change request for a route plan for delivering a plurality of orders from a distribution center to a plurality of physical stores, wherein the route plan comprises one or more constraints, wherein the change request is subject to a scenario specification and a load feasibility specification, and wherein the scenario specification indicates (i) whether a route start time is fixed or flexible, and (ii) whether a sequence of stops is fixed or flexible; conducting a pallet check based on the load feasibility specification for violations of one or more of constraints, identification errors, and temperature ranges; determining an updated route plan based on whether the change request for the route plan is a feasible route based on the scenario specification and the load feasibility specification, based on whether the route start time is flexible, based on the pallet check, and based on a distance matrix indicating distances between stores in accordance with multipliers representing traffic patterns; and outputting the updated route plan when the change request for the route plan under the scenario specification is a feasible route, and, when the route start time is flexible, outputting an updated route start time, to cause delivering of the plurality of orders from the distribution center to the plurality of physical stores according to the updated route plan, and when the route start time is flexible, according to the updated route start time.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claim 22 further recites the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a processing resource and a vehicle. The processing resource and vehicle are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 21 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a processing resource, vehicle and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0019-0026. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 21 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623