Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to applicant response filed on October 14, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/5/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. (Step 2A -prong 1) The abstract idea is directed to managing a fleet of delivery vehicles and assigning them tasks (deliveries) from a warehouse to customers (The claim language (e.g., claim 1) recites, inter alia: associating/assigning a delivery vehicle with a task to load and deliver a first group of packages; upon a second group of packages entering the warehouse before a predetermined time, modifying the stored task so the first and second groups are loaded collectively when total load ≤ vehicle capacity; when total load > capacity, acquiring attributes of packages and selecting a subset based on those attributes so that the selected plurality fits within vehicle capacity; and related data processing and task-modification steps implemented by a controller and memory), which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the abstract idea pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices; and/or (ii) commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
The claims thus recite steps of organizing logistical work: identifying, monitoring, deciding, and assigning deliveries; comparing loads to capacity; and selecting/consolidating packages by attribute (destination, delivery time slot, etc.). These operations are methods of organizing human activity and mental/conceptual processes (observing arrivals, calculating totals, comparing to capacity, selecting subsets). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (abstract ideas include methods of organizing human activity); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims directed to commercial/organizational tasks were abstract); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting and analyzing data held abstract).
Therefore, the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2A -prong 2) claims 1, 8, and 15 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application: “a controller” and “a memory”. The additional elements merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite any particular improvement in underlying computer technology or a specific way of performing the claimed operations that improves the functioning of the computer itself or other technology. The claims recite a generic “controller” and “memory” and data processing steps at a high level of generality. The specification describes conventional components (sensors, computing device, storage) and logistics processes but does not identify or claim a non-conventional or specific technological implementation that materially improves computer or network performance. The claimed elements (controller, memory, receiving package data, comparing totals, updating tasks, selecting packages by attribute) amount to the automation of conventional logistics tasks on generic computer hardware and do not integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (2012); Customedia Techs. v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (generic computer components implementing abstract ideas do not render claim patent eligible).
(Step 2B) Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements: “a controller” and “a memory” do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claim elements do not supply an “inventive concept” that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited steps—assigning tasks, detecting additional packages within a time window, summing loads and comparing to capacity, and selecting packages by attribute, are routine data processing tasks and conventional logistics management activities well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The additional elements are being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely providing computational instructions to implement the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, yet fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.0S(f-h). Specifically, for a scanner and personal electronic device see MPEP §2106.0S(d) (II) (ii) discussing the performance of repetitive calculations by a computer; and for scanner; personal electronic device; and extrinsic communication network, see MPEP §2106.0S(d) (II) (i) discussing receiving and transmitting of data over a network. Therefore, the additional elements in separately or in combination do not add significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. These claims do not include additional elements to perform their respective functions of assigning and executing beyond the technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as disclosed in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application or otherwise provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dholakia et al. (US 10,867,275) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0374031).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15: Dholakia et al. teaches a method to be executed by a controller of an information processing apparatus comprising the controller and a memory, the method comprising:
associating a delivery vehicle having a maximum loading capacity equal to or greater than a load amount of a first group of packages stored in a warehouse, with a task to load collectively and deliver the first group of packages, and storing the association in the memory, thereby assigning the task to the delivery vehicle (figs.2, 3, 7 & 8, Col 3 Lns 3-25, Col 13 Lns 44-63, col 9 lns 5-9, col 9 lns 4-17);
in a case that a second group of packages enters the warehouse between assignment of the task and a predetermined time after the assignment, and that a total load amount of the first group of packages and the second group of packages is equal to or less than the maximum loading capacity of the delivery vehicle, executing a first modification process to modify the task stored in the memory so that the first group of packages and the second group of packages are loaded collectively and delivered (Fig.7 steps 709-712, Col 9 Lns 49-65, Col 12 Lns 5-45)
in a case that the second group of packages enters the warehouse between the assignment
of the task and the predetermined time after the assignment and that the total load amount of the first group of packages and the second group of packages exceeds the maximum loading capacity of the delivery vehicle, acquiring an attribute of each package included in the first group of packages and the second group of packages, and executing a second modification process to modify the task stored in the memory so that a plurality of packages selected from among the first group of packages and the second group of packages based on the acquired attributes is loaded collectively and delivered, a total load amount of the plurality of packages selected being equal to or less than the maximum loading capacity of the delivery vehicle (package attributes 236 include type, hazard class, fragility, dimensions; optimization engine can select subsets based on attributes when space is limited. Fig.9, Col 4 Lns 59-62, Col 5 Lns 25-45, Col 15 Lns 4-17) Dholakia et al).
Dholakia does not appear to explicitly teach executing, upon a second group of packages entering the warehouse between assignment of the task and a predetermined time after assignment, a first modification process to modify the task.
However, He et al. teaches a system and method for estimating and adjusting transportation resource utilization based on cubic volumes of recommended packages for shipping items (He et al Uses package recommendation and item information systems to group shipments by attributes (destination, weight, cubic volume, priority) for assignment when capacity is exceeded, figs. 5, 6 & 9, ¶¶ 14, 17, 18, 31).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the teachings of He et al. into the disclosure of Dholakia et al., for the advantage of progressively improving the accuracy of cubic volume of the shipments to be shipped. The improved accuracy of the shipment data model may increase the accuracy of the transportation resource plan (He et al. ¶ 17). Therefore, in view of the above evidence, the combination of Dholakia et al. in view of He et al. still meet the scope of the limitations as currently claimed.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9: He et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined time is a scheduled completion time of a loading operation of the first group of packages onto the delivery vehicle or a time at which the loading operation of the first group of packages is determined to be complete (fig.5, ¶¶ 44, 76).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12: Dholakia et al. in view of He et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first group of packages includes a package having a first attribute and a package having a second attribute, the second group of packages includes a package having the first attribute, and in the second modification process, the controller modifies the task stored in the memory so that among the first group of packages and the second group of packages, each package having the first attribute is loaded collectively and delivered in a case that a total load amount of each package having the first attribute is equal to or less than the maximum loading capacity of the delivery vehicle (Dholakia et al. figs.2, 9, Col 4 Lns 52-62, Col 15 Lns 8-17).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13: Dholakia et al. in view of He et al. teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein he first attribute is information indicating that a delivery destination is a first consignee, and the second attribute is information indicating that the delivery destination is a second consignee (Dholakia et al. figs.2, 9, Col 4 Lns 52-62, Col 15 Lns 8-17).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14: Dholakia et al. in view of He et al. teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the first attribute is information indicating that a time slot available for receipt by a consignee who is a delivery destination is a first time slot, and the second attribute is information indicating that a time slot available for receipt by the consignee who is the delivery destination is a second time slot (Dholakia et al. figs.2, 9, Col 4 Lns 52-62, Col 15 Lns 8-17).
Response To Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101: The applicant contends the claims solve “a concrete problem in automated warehouse and delivery systems,” i.e. real-time consolidation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, in fact, the heart of the claimed invention remains a set of purely organizational steps, assigning packages to vehicles, waiting for new packages, comparing loads to capacity, and selecting subsets by attribute—carried out on generic “controller” and “memory.”. These steps fall squarely within “methods of organizing human activity” (e.g. logistics, scheduling, resource allocation) and “mental processes” (observe new packages, evaluate totals, select subsets). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611; OIP, 788 F.3d at 1362; Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–54.
The applicant also argues that “controller” + “memory” + “real-time optimization” provide technological improvement. However, the claims recite no specialized hardware, no new data structure, no improvement in sensor processing, no improved network protocol, nor any inventive interaction with the physical world. They simply automate routine logistics steps on a generic computer.
That is insufficient. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (generic computer implementation does not transform abstract idea); Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1365 (generic computers do not supply the integration); ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 771–72 (networked device + business logic abstract).
Further, the ordered combination is conventional. The task assignment, package‐arrival detection, capacity comparison, and attribute‐based filtering were all known in the prior art (see Dholakia; He).
No element recites a non-routine or unconventional feature. The mere addition of “predetermined time” or “attributes” like consignee/time‐slot is a field-of-use or data‐filtering limitation—still abstract. See TLI, 823 F.3d at 610; buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353.
Under Berkheimer, the examiner may treat these logistics steps as well-understood, routine, conventional. Nothing in the specification alleges otherwise.
As such, if the claimed selection step is simply a logical/data-processing step carried out on a generic computer, it remains an abstract idea unless the selection is performed via a particular technical solution that is itself an improvement in computing technology. The claim language does not recite such a technical improvement.
For the above reasons, the claims remain directed to abstract ideas, without integration into a practical application or any inventive concept. The § 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding 103: The applicant argues neither Dholakia nor He teaches selecting a subset of packages by attribute when capacity is exceeded. However, He explicitly teaches, at ¶¶ 59–64 and Fig. 5, modeling shipments by attributes (destination, time window) and “reactively canceling or scheduling additional transportation resources” (¶ 78) when over/under-capacity. That depends on grouping shipments by address/time-slot attributes—i.e., selecting subsets of shipments sharing common attributes.
Dholakia teaches tracking package attributes (Col. 4 Lns 52–62; Fig. 2–3) and optimizing load sequences by attribute. A POSITA would combine He’s transportation-plan re-optimization upon capacity shortage (¶ 78) with Dholakia’s attribute-based consolidation logic to modify vehicular tasks accordingly.
Regarding arguments directed to claims 2 & 9, “Predetermined time is scheduled loading completion or completion signal”. He discloses “transportation resource change deadlines” (¶ 76) and cut-off times for plan updates (Fig. 9, step 910). Dholakia discloses recognizing “loading completion” via worker/computer signals (Col. 12 Lns 5–15; Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to equate a generic “predetermined time” with either the scheduled loading completion or the completion-signal time.
Regarding arguments directed to claims 5 & 12 – “Attribute = same consignee”. He discloses grouping shipments by consignee/location (¶ 33–34; Fig. 3). Dholakia’s “package attributes” include destination (Col. 4 ll. 52–62). A skilled artisan would inevitably select shipments sharing the same consignee when re-optimizing loads.
Regarding arguments directed to claims 6 & 13 – “Attribute = time-slot available for receipt”. He teaches grouping and prioritizing shipments by delivery time windows (¶ 31–34; Fig. 3). Dholakia’s system can be readily configured to treat time slots as package attributes. It is obvious to use time slots when selecting subsets.
The prior art collectively teaches every limitation, and their combination would have been obvious to a POSITA seeking to improve logistics efficiency by dynamically consolidating loads before departure. The § 103 rejection is maintained.
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 FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627