DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed 10/20/2025.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 12 and 16-18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims save computational time and resources and therefore bring forth a technical benefit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that such a benefit is to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any particular computer technology or technical field. Detecting either of these facts prior to the processing of a delivery plan would bring about the benefit of reducing potentially wasted processing resources regardless of the environment in which this abstract idea is practiced, including by hand. Therefore, such an improvement is not to any technical feature or technology , but rather to the abstract idea itself. As noted in MPEP 2106.06(a)ID, “. .. 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.” Applicant’s claims are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-17, that the claims improve the functioning of a computer by avoiding situations in which a feasible solution cannot be obtained even though a long time is spent processing a problem, therefore, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that such a benefit is to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any particular computer technology or technical field. Detecting issues in constraints ahead of time would avoid a situation where a feasible solution cannot be found regardless of the environment in which this abstract idea is practiced, including by hand. Therefore, such an improvement is not to any technical feature or technology , but rather to the abstract idea itself. As noted in MPEP 2106.06(a)ID, “. .. 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.” Applicant’s claims are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 15 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 14, and 15 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 14, and 15, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receive data indicating a plurality of constraints on a delivery plan in a case where a plurality of moving bodies are divided to deliver packages from a delivery base to a plurality of nodes; (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
determine whether or not the plurality of constraints are consistent with respect to at least one of time and resource assignment; (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
input a delivery plan instruction based on the plurality of constraints to second processor, which is the same as or different from the first processor, in a case where the first processor determines that the plurality of constraints are consistent; (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could input a delivery plan instruction based on a plurality of constraints to a generator when constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
sequentially determines delivery routes of the plurality of moving bodies based on the delivery plan instruction input. . . (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could sequentially determine delivery routes based on a delivery plan instruction input; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
wherein the plurality of constraints includes a first constraint that specifies a last visited node that is a node to be visited last on a route from the delivery base and a second constraint that specifies a moving body to visit the last visited node. . . converts the second constraint so as to preferentially assign the last visited node to a moving body that is relatively later in a determination order of the delivery route; (Claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could sequentially determine delivery routes and convert a constraint to preferentially assign a node later or earlier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
. . . does not. . . convert a constraint that is determined to be not consistent with respect to at least one of time and resource assignment. . (Claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine not to process a constraint if it is determined not to be consistent with respect to time or resource assignment; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that this limitation, especially in light of the fact that the first and second processors may comprise a single processor, amounts to the mere requirement to not convert a constraint if it is determined to be inconsistent; as outlined above, this portion amounts to the recitation of one or more abstract ideas, and the use of a first and/or second processor to perform this step amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
. . . does not. . . input. . .in a case where it is determined. . . that the plurality of constraints are not met. (Claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine not to continue processing of a given route if a plurality of constraints are not met; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that this limitation, especially in light of the fact that the first and second processors may comprise a single processor, amounts to the mere requirement to not continue processing a route if constraints are not met, as outlined above, this portion amounts to the recitation of one or more abstract ideas, and the use of a first and/or second processor to perform this step amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
obtains earliest departure time and latest departure time of a first node of the plurality of nodes based on earliest departure time and latest departure time of the delivery base and a distance from the delivery base to the first node, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
obtains a first difference between the earliest departure time of the first node and available departure time frame of the first node, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
changes the earliest departure time of the delivery base and the earliest departure time of the first node based on the first difference, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could change departure times in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
obtains earliest departure time and latest departure time of a second node of the plurality of nodes based on the earliest departure time and the latest departure time of the first node and a distance from the first node to the second node, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
obtains a second difference between the earliest departure time of the second node and available departure time frame of the second node, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could obtain this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
changes the earliest departure time of the delivery base, the first node, and the second node and changes the latest departure time of the delivery base, the first node, and the second node based on the second difference, (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could change departure times in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
repeats obtaining a next difference between the earliest departure time of a next node of the plurality of nodes and available departure time frame of the next node, changing the earliest departure time of the delivery base and the plurality of nodes, and changing the latest departure time of the delivery base and the plurality of nodes based on the next difference, and (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could repeat these steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
transmits an error notification. . . so that the user modifies the constraint based on the error notification when. . . detects that the earliest departure time of the center and each node is later than the latest departure time of the center and each node. (claims 1, 14, and 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could notify a user of an error when this detection is made; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a first processor configured to: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a second processor, which is the same as or different from the first processor, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer executed delivery plan support method, the method comprising: (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes: (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a computer program that causes. . . (claims 1, 14, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
to a user terminal (claims 1, 14, 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 14, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-11, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent when detecting that there is a moving body that cannot depart from the delivery base within an available departure time frame at the delivery base based on a constraint of the number of berths at the delivery base.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 3:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent when detecting that there is a node at which the moving body does not arrive within a predefined available arrival time frame based on a constraint of the number of berths at the delivery base.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 4:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent when detecting that there is a node at which the moving body does not arrive within a predefined available arrival time frame based on a constraint of a departure time from the delivery base of the plurality of moving bodies fixed in advance.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 5:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine whether or not the moving body can be assigned by comparing, in descending order, a time point at which the moving body should depart from the delivery base in order to arrive at the available arrival time frame for a first visited node that is a node to be visited first on a route from the delivery base and a departure time from the delivery base for the plurality of moving bodies, and
determines whether or not the moving body can be assigned by comparing, in ascending order, a time point at which the moving body should depart from the delivery base in order to arrive at the available arrival time frame for a node different from the first visited node and a departure time from the delivery base for the plurality of moving bodies.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether or not a moving body can be assigned by comparing these time points in ascending and descending order; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 6:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent in a case where a load volume of packages corresponding to one or more nodes to be assigned to a certain moving body exceeds an upper limit of the load volume of the moving body based on a constraint defining a moving body to visit a specific node.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 7:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent in a case where the number of nodes to be assigned to a certain moving body exceeds a maximum number of nodes visited by the moving body based on a constraint defining a moving body to visit a specific node.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 8:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent in a case where a load volume of packages on a certain route exceeds an upper limit of the load volume of a moving body that can be assigned to the route based on a constraint defining a moving body to visit a specific node and a constraint of a route defining a visit order of a plurality of nodes.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 9:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent in a case where the number of nodes on a certain route exceeds the maximum number of nodes visited by a moving body that can be assigned to the route based on a constraint defining a moving body to visit a specific node and a constraint of a route defining a visit order of a plurality of nodes.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 10:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent when detecting that there is no moving body that can be assigned to the route based on a constraint of a route defining a visit order of a plurality of nodes and a constraint of a predefined available arrival time frame for each of the plurality of nodes.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 11:
wherein the first processor is configured to determine that the plurality of constraints are inconsistent, in a case where, based on a first constraint defining a first visited node that is a node to be visited first on a route from the delivery base, a second constraint defining a last visited node that is a node to be visited last on a route from the delivery base, and a third constraint defining moving bodies to visit the first visited node and the last visited node, the number of the first visited nodes and the last visited nodes exceeds the number of moving bodies defined by the third constraint.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in determining whether a plurality of constraints are consistent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 13:
wherein the plurality of constraints further includes a third constraint that specifies a first visited node that is a node to be visited first on a route from the delivery base,
the second constraint specifies a moving body to visit the first visited node or the last visited node, and
the first processor converts the second constraint so as to preferentially assign the last visited node to a moving body that is relatively later in a determination order of the delivery route, and preferentially assign the first visited node to a moving body that is relatively earlier in the determination order of the delivery route.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could sequentially determine delivery routes and convert a constraint to preferentially assign a node later or earlier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in routing vehicle while performing shipment services for their customers. Regarding the use of a first processor, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-11, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628