DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 04/13/2026.
Claims 3-4, 14, and 21 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-20 and 22 have been examined and are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/13/2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s filing of the Terminal Disclaimer dated 04/13/2026.
Priority
The current Application has a foreign priority date of 09/27/2022 from foreign application JP2022-153896. Therefore, the claims receive the filing date of 09/27/2022.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2, 5-13, 15-20 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 reads “wherein the determination code is further configured to … from the plurality of movable bodies” but should likely read “wherein determination code is configured to … from a plurality of movable bodies”
Claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1 and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 19 reads “from the plurality of movable bodies” but should likely read “from a plurality of movable bodies”
-Claim 20 reads “wherein the determination code is further configured to … from the plurality of movable bodies” but should likely read “wherein determination code is configured to … from a plurality of movable bodies”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-13, 15-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-at least one memory configured to store program code; and
-at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
-first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
-second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order;
-processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users,
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
-calculate at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users,
-wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order;
-wherein the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select, from the plurality of movable bodies, a movable body that can depart earliest from a current processing time point, arrive at a delivery destination, and return, on the basis of a delivery timing included in order information and an available time zone of each of the plurality of movable bodies stored in a delivery vehicle management database, and update the available time zone of the selected movable body to a zone after the scheduled delivery end time in the delivery vehicle management database
The above limitations recite the concept of sorting items selected for order by a number of users, providing either an upper wight limit or an upper volume limit of one or more items based on the number of users, and scheduling a delivery. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitation of calculate at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “calculate” and “sorting and displaying” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order; second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users, and wherein the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select, from the plurality of movable bodies, a movable body that can depart earliest from a current processing time point, arrive at a delivery destination, and return, on the basis of a delivery timing included in order information and an available time zone of each of the plurality of movable bodies stored in a delivery vehicle management database, and update the available time zone of the selected movable body to a zone after the scheduled delivery end time in the delivery vehicle management database are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the receiving of the designation is done by the at least one processor configured by first reception code, that the receiving of a selection is done by the at least one processor configured by second reception code, that the sorting and displaying is done by the at least one processor configured by processing code, that the controlling and selecting is done the at least one processor configured by determination code, that the order information and available time zone are stored in a delivery vehicle management database, and that the updating of the available time zone in in the delivery vehicle management database, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor,” “second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor,” “processing code configured to cause the at least one processor,” “the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor” and “a delivery vehicle management database” language, “receive,” “receive,” “sort and display,” “calculate,” “the sorting and displaying,” “control and select,” and “update” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-at least one memory configured to store program code; and
-at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
-first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
-second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order;
-processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users,
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
-calculate at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users,
-wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order;
-wherein the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select, from the plurality of movable bodies, a movable body that can depart earliest from a current processing time point, arrive at a delivery destination, and return, on the basis of a delivery timing included in order information and an available time zone of each of the plurality of movable bodies stored in a delivery vehicle management database, and update the available time zone of the selected movable body to a zone after the scheduled delivery end time in the delivery vehicle management database
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification – “The control unit 14 includes at least one CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like. The CPU (an example of processor) is configured to access the program code stored in the ROM or the storage unit 13 and operate as instructed by the program code.” Specifically, the additional elements of at least one memory, program code, at least one processor, first reception code, second reception code, processing code, determination code, and a delivery vehicle management database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, sorting data, displaying data, calculating data, controlling data, selecting data, and updating data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) 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.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 19 is an order processing method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional element of a computer and a delivery vehicle management database, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 20 is an order reception terminal reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional element of at least one memory, program code, at least one processor, first reception code, second reception code, processing code, determination code, and a delivery vehicle management database, however, claim 20 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claim 8 does not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 22 recite the additional elements of the program code, third reception code, the at least one processor, the processing code, fourth reception code, allocation code, a server, a communication network, the at least one memory, fifth reception code, a first terminal, sixth reception code, a second terminal, the determination code, a screen, seventh reception code, each of the screens, and the second reception code, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 19, and 20, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 22 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. sorting items selected for order by a number of users, providing either an upper wight limit or an upper volume limit of one or more items based on the number of users, and scheduling a delivery) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-20, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-20, and 22 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-20, and 22 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-20, and 22 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Subject Matter Allowable Over the Art” section of the Final Office Action dated 01/13/2026 as the allowable subject matter was rolled up into the independent claims from previous dependent claim 21. Specifically, as previously detailed, the recitation of wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: calculate at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes James et al. (US 2016/0267448 A1), Lauka et al. (US 2018/0174212 A1), Luckay et al. (US 2020/0286021 A1), and Bruns et al. (US 2004/0107151 A1)
The most relevant NPL is: McDougall (reference U cited 01/09/2026 and 04/30/2026 in PTO-892) teaches assigning and dispatching unmanned aerial vehicles for order delivery, but does not teach or suggest the recited claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that in Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 as amended does not recite an abstract idea. The Office Action characterizes the claimed limitations as "advertising, marketing or sales activities" under the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping. However, the amended claim recites specific technical operations directed to automated fleet management of physical delivery vehicles. In particular, claim 1 now recites selecting "a movable body that can depart earliest from a current processing time point, arrive at a delivery destination, and return, on the basis of a delivery timing included in order information and an available time zone of each of the plurality of movable bodies stored in a delivery vehicle management database." This is not an advertising, marketing, or sales activity. Rather, it is an automated logistics operation that evaluates the realtime availability of multiple physical delivery vehicles and selects a specific vehicle based on operational constraints including departure time optimization and available time zones. Claim 1 further recites that the system "update[ s] the available time zone of the selected movable body to a zone after the scheduled delivery end time in the delivery vehicle management database." This updating operation reflects active management of the operational state of physical delivery vehicles in a structured database, ensuring that once a vehicle is assigned a delivery plan, its availability is modified to prevent scheduling conflicts with subsequent orders. These operations are not commercial interactions that could practically be characterized as advertising or marketing - they are specific automated fleet coordination operations tied to the physical availability and scheduling of delivery vehicles (Remarks, pages 14-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). For instance, displaying data related to the delivery of one or more items encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Evaluating data and selecting a delivery vehicle based on logistical data such as departure time optimization and available time zones are sales activities as they are determining logistics for delivering items ordered by users. Merely automating the logistics operations do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Additionally, updating logistical delivery data of orders is a sales activity and, while the delivery vehicle management database is an additional element, which is considered under Step 2A Prong 2 not Step 2A Prong 1, merely updating data stored in a database amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the Office Action characterizes this as "merely displaying data" that encompasses advertising or sales activities. However, the claimed display operation is not generic data presentation. The "upper limit value" is specifically "based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users" - that is, it is derived from a physical parameter of the delivery vehicle (its loading capacity) in combination with the number of users in the group order. Paragraph [0084] of the specification establishes a direct computational relationship between the physical characteristics of the delivery vehicle and the per-user ordering constraints presented on the display. This is distinct from advertising or marketing, which involves promoting goods or services to influence purchasing decisions (Remarks, pages 16-17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regardless of the data being ‘direct computational relationship between the physical characteristics of the delivery vehicle and the per-user ordering constraints’ it still amounts to merely displaying data as the upper limit value based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users is not a functional element of the interface (e.g. embedded elements, interactive elements, etc.). Additionally, utilizing a direct computational relationship between the physical characteristics of the delivery vehicle and the per-user ordering constraints is a sales activity as it is determining logistics for delivering items ordered by users. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that, even assuming arguendo that claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Prong 1, the claim is integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of the Step 2A. The Office Action contends that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware. The Office Action further contends that the claims fail to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. However, the MPEP does not require that the improvement be limited to computer technology. An improvement to another technology or technical field - in this case, automated delivery logistics for capacity-constrained movable bodies such as drones and unmanned ground vehicles - is sufficient. As described in paragraph [0004] of the specification, "in a delivery vehicle whose loading capacity is highly restricted having a large restriction on a loading capacity as represented by drone delivery, it is desirable to load items ordered by a plurality of persons together onto one delivery vehicle and deliver the items for the purpose of, for example, increasing delivery efficiency per delivery." The claimed invention addresses this specific technical problem through a combination of operations that tie digital group ordering to physical delivery vehicle constraints and automated dispatch (Remarks, page 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Delivery logistics for capacity-constrained movable bodies such as drones and unmanned ground vehicles is not a technical field as the actual field is delivery logistics. For instance, the improvements Applicant is arguing are improvements to the delivery logistics (i.e. increasing delivery efficiency per delivery), the automation (i.e. generic computer components) and the drones and unmanned ground vehicles are merely utilized, they themselves are not improved. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claim as amended recites a specific technical improvement to delivery logistics. The determination code does not merely perform generic data processing - it recites selecting "a movable body that can depart earliest from a current processing time point, arrive at a delivery destination, and return, on the basis of a delivery timing included in order information and an available time zone of each of the plurality of movable bodies stored in a delivery vehicle management database." This recites a specific selection algorithm that evaluates real-time operational parameters of multiple physical vehicles against order-specific delivery timing requirements to identify the optimal vehicle for dispatch. Furthermore, the claim recites that the system "update[ s] the available time zone of the selected movable body to a zone after the scheduled delivery end time in the delivery vehicle management database." This updating operation has a direct physical-world consequence: it modifies the scheduling state of a physical delivery vehicle in the database to reflect its newly assigned delivery commitment, thereby affecting the availability of that vehicle for all subsequent delivery plan determinations. This is not merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - it is a specific technical mechanism for managing and coordinating physical delivery resources (Remarks, pages 17-18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Delivery logistics is not a technical field and merely utilizing generic computer components to manage and coordinate physical delivery resources amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the Office Action also contends that the claims fail to recite how the processor controls the movable body, suggesting that the claims would need to show that a selection triggers the engine or motor of the movable body. However, the standard for integration into a practical application does not require recitation of low-level mechanical activation. The claimed operations - selecting a specific vehicle from a fleet based on real-time availability, setting "at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body," and updating the vehicle's available time zone in the delivery vehicle management database - collectively represent operational control and coordination of physical delivery vehicles. As described in paragraph [0131] of the specification, "when the scheduled delivery start time indicated in the delivery plan comes, the delivery vehicle starts delivery of the one or more items related to the order to the delivery destination." The delivery plan determined by the claimed determination code directly governs the physical dispatch of the selected movable body (Remarks, page 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely selecting a specific vehicle from a fleet based on real-time availability, setting "at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body," and updating the vehicle's available time zone in the delivery vehicle management database utilize generic computer components, such as code run on processors and a delivery vehicle management database, to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). As previously explained, the claims fail to recite sufficient technical detail on how the moveable bodies themselves are dispatched. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that, regarding the Step 2B analysis, claim 1 as amended recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific combination of operations recited in claim 1 - receiving designation of the number of users, receiving selection of items, sorting and displaying the selected items for each user, displaying per-user upper limit values based on the loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of users, and selecting a movable body that can depart earliest based on delivery timing and available time zones stored in a delivery vehicle management database while updating the available time zone after scheduling - represents a specific and non-conventional ordered combination. The Office Action does not provide any evidentiary support to establish that this particular combination of operations is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) and do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Additionally, as is described in the MPEP 2106.05(II) (i.e. “Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: … Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant”), step 2B considers whether additional elements concluded to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Examiner did not identify any of the additional elements as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A so, accordingly, there aren’t elements to be evaluated in terms of whether they are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that independent Claims 19 and 20 are amended in a manner consistent with the amendments to Claim 1 and are patent-eligible for the same reasons set forth above. Dependent Claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22 depend from Claim 1 and are patent-eligible at least by virtue of their dependency (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, claim 1 is not eligible. Accordingly, independent claims 19 and 20 and dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22 are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that the alert operations of Claim 5 that are triggered when "a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery," and the server-based delivery prioritization of Claim 13 wherein "the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order" recite further specific technical features that reinforce patent eligibility (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting displaying an alert based on calculated data, as well as, merely utilizing generic computer components for delivery prioritization amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, dependent claims 5 and 13 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Khasis et al. (US 2017/0262790 A1) teaches dynamically and optimally sequencing routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights