DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 10 October 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6-8, 14-15, 18 and 20-21 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19; the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “all steps in the method are performed by one or more processors of an electronic device” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Step 2A Prong One identifies whether or not there is a judicial exception / abstract idea recited in the claims. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities (subgroupings: managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions), and there are also individual limitations that also recite mental processes (subgroupings: evaluation, judgment). Whether or not the judicial exceptions are performed by (or on) a machine such as the claimed electronic device does not preclude the claim from reciting a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) regarding certain methods of organizing human activities “It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) regarding mental processes “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, ‘courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind’. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Since the claims recite judicial exceptions that fall within the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes, the claims recite a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “Applicant submits that none of the claimed subject matter falls into any of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas as set forth in the Revised Guidelines” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. Limitations represent subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. First, the limitations of wherein the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized is determined…; determining… an associated line set corresponding to the stowage to be optimized according to the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized; generating… a line sub-network to be optimized according to the associated line set; obtaining… a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network to be optimized based on the line data of the line to be optimized and the stowage data of the stowage to be optimized; determining… a transportation cost type of a routing in the routing sub-networks to be optimized, wherein the transportation cost type comprises a less-than-truck load cost of a less-truck-load line on an original routing in the routing, a full-truck-load cost of a full-truck-load line on the original routing in the routing and an increased less-truck-load cost of an alternative line after stowage adjustment in the routing, the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line is obtained… by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized according to a remaining stowage capacity of the alternative line to reduce a cargo volume on the line to be optimized; obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; determining… a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; and obtaining… alternative routing of the stowage to be optimized by using a greedy algorithm to screen according to the original routing of the stowage to be optimized, wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost, minimum transition, or minimum number of transportation vehicles are set as an objective function, and service timeliness for the stowage of the alternative routing being not lower than corresponding service timeliness of the original routing is set as a constraint condition are certain methods of organizing human activities. These limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior includes determin[ing] associated routing of the stowage…, determining an associated line set…; generating a line sub-network to be optimized…; obtaining a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network…; determining a transportation cost type of a routing …; obtaining increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized…; obtaining the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs…; determining a target logistics routing network selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining alternate routing…; screen[ing] according to the original routing…; and following rules or instructions includes determin[ing] associated routing of the stowage…; determining an associated line set…; generating a line sub-network to be optimized…; obtaining a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network…; determining a transportation cost type of a routing …; obtaining increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized…; obtaining the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs…; determining a target logistics routing network selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining alternate routing…; screen[ing] according to the original routing… wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost. Second, the individual limitations of wherein the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized is determined…; determining… an associated line set corresponding to the stowage to be optimized according to the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized; generating… a line sub-network to be optimized according to the associated line set; obtaining… a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network to be optimized based on the line data of the line to be optimized and the stowage data of the stowage to be optimized; determining… a transportation cost type of a routing in the routing sub-networks to be optimized, wherein the transportation cost type comprises a less-than-truck load cost of a less-truck-load line on an original routing in the routing, a full-truck-load cost of a full-truck-load line on the original routing in the routing and an increased less-truck-load cost of an alternative line after stowage adjustment in the routing, the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line is obtained… by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized according to a remaining stowage capacity of the alternative line to reduce a cargo volume on the line to be optimized; obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; obtaining… alternative routing of the stowage to be optimized by using a greedy algorithm to screen according to the original routing of the stowage to be optimized, wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost, minimum transition, or minimum number of transportation vehicles are set as an objective function, and service timeliness for the stowage of the alternative routing being not lower than corresponding service timeliness of the original routing is set as a constraint condition as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation represent mental processes. These limitations represent the subgroupings of evaluation and judgment. For example, determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging associated routing of the stowage to be optimized, evaluating routing of the stowage and judging an associated line set, and judging a transportation cost type; generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating the associated line set and judging a line sub-network to be optimized; obtaining / adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating line data, stowage data, and the line sub-network to judge a routing sub-network; obtaining / adjusting in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating stowage and remaining stowage capacity to then judge the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line; obtaining / summing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating transportation costs to judge the total costs; and obtaining / screening in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating transportation costs / minimum transition / minimum number of vehicles with original routing of the stowage and judging alternative routing. Third, the individual limitations of obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; and determining… a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing recite a mathematical concept (subgrouping: mathematical formula or calculation). Hence, there are limitations that satisfy the judicial exception subgroupings in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “the claims integrate a practical application, thus are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 now recites that the method is performed in an electronic device for determining a logistics routing network to reduce transportation costs. As described in the specification, with the rapid development of logistics industry, a problem being solves is that, in the related art, the optimization effect based on artificial experience cannot be ensured, rule screening in the optimization process cannot ensure the whole network optimization effect of different businesses, and the current optimization technology may have a great impact on the entire routing network, thus affecting the normal operation of the routing network. That is, the amended claim 1 is applied to a specific application. Thus, even when the claims are considered under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible under this test as well” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, the electronic device is a high level general purpose computer being used as a tool to implement a judicial exception which is not a practical application. This is no more than adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). This does not present a particular technical solution. Second, the problem of how to optimize a routing network to ensure logistics service timeliness and reduce transportation costs as a problem as described in the Applicant specification background ¶[0003] is more representative of a business / entrepreneurial problem instead of a technical / technological problem or a problem rooted in technology. Also, see MPEP 2106.05(a) such that “the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”, however here the additional elements only represent using general purpose computers as a tool to implement an abstract idea, and high level extra-solution activities using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), neither of which are not indicative of integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. Hence, the problem is not a problem rooted in technology / technical problem, and the solution is not a technical solution that provides a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “these claims are directed to an improvement in the performance of an electronic device for determining a logistics routing network so as to ensure the service timeliness and reduce the transportation cost, which does not fall into any of the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas and is integrated into a practical application” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The electronic device and its technical performance is not improved outside of the judicial exception. The electronic device is merely being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (e.g. determining a target logistics routing network) which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed invention does not represent an improvement to electronic devices (and their performance) themselves. Next, an improved service timeliness as a result of implementing a judicial exception by a computer is not sufficient to provide a technical improvement that is a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Also, improved reduction of a transportation cost at best is only an entrepreneurial / business improvement of the judicial exception (i.e. determining the target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a corresponding minimum transportation cost) instead of a technological / technical improvement because this is not rooted in a technology. Hence, the claimed invention is not directed to an improvement in the performance of an electronic device, and determining a logistics routing network to ensure service timeliness and reduce the transportation cost does not provide a technical improvement / improvement to technology beyond the judicial exception that is a practical application (or significantly more). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “the Examiner acknowledges that the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 are not taught or suggested by the prior art. Furthermore, by these limitations in these claims, the performance of the electronic device for determining a logistics routing network can be improved, due to which the transportation costs can be reduced. Thus the effect is significant. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that these features represent an inventive concept. These operations are not well-understood, routing, or conventional, e.g., are significantly more than any law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. First, whether or not the claims are novel / obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Merely adding novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstract idea into something concrete, per Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Intellectual Ventures LLC v Symantec Corp (2016) states “Indeed, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter”, citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981); and cites Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303-04 rejecting the Government's invitation to substitute 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under 101; and states “Here, the jury’s general finding that Symantec did not prove to be clear and convincing evidence that three particular prior art references do not disclose all the limitations or render obvious the asserted claims does not resolve the question of whether the claims embody an inventive concept at the second step of Mayo / Alice". Second, the additional elements are evaluated with respect to whether or not these elements are well-understood, routing, or conventional in Step 2B; and none of which add a specific limitation or element other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional in the field. See Applicant’s specification ¶[0026] describing various electronic devices having display screens including but not limited to desktop computers, portable computers, smartphones, tablet computers or the like at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See Applicant’s specification ¶[0045] describing determining associated routing by using a tandem engine (e.g. a relationship table) that includes information such as the path formed by each sorting center and the stowage on the path, the stowage code, the schedule, etc. at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). The obtaining line data steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See Applicant’s specification ¶[0041], ¶[0045] describing obtaining line data and stowage data from the database of the logistics network at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). In combination, these limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components. Hence, there is no specific limitation or combination of limitations in Step 2B that satisfy the criteria of MPEP 2106.05(d) for eligibility. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: tandem engine in a logistics field in claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Priority
This application 18/689,912 filed on 7 March 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/109549 filed on 1 August 2022; which claims priority from People’s Republic of China application CN202111480399.4 filed on 7 December 2021 and People’s Republic of China application CN202111353994.1 filed on 11 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 7 March 2024 and 10 October 2025 have been acknowledged by the Office.
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 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19:
Step 1:
Claims 1-3 and 5 recite a method; claims 9, 11-13 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and claims 10, 16-17, and 19 recite an electronic device. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recite wherein the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized is determined…; determining… an associated line set corresponding to the stowage to be optimized according to the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized; generating… a line sub-network to be optimized according to the associated line set; obtaining… a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network to be optimized based on the line data of the line to be optimized and the stowage data of the stowage to be optimized; determining… a transportation cost type of a routing in the routing sub-networks to be optimized, wherein the transportation cost type comprises a less-than-truck load cost of a less-truck-load line on an original routing in the routing, a full-truck-load cost of a full-truck-load line on the original routing in the routing and an increased less-truck-load cost of an alternative line after stowage adjustment in the routing, the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line is obtained… by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized according to a remaining stowage capacity of the alternative line to reduce a cargo volume on the line to be optimized; obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; determining… a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining… alternative routing of the stowage to be optimized by using a greedy algorithm to screen according to the original routing of the stowage to be optimized, wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost, minimum transition, or minimum number of transportation vehicles are set as an objective function, and service timeliness for the stowage of the alternative routing being not lower than corresponding service timeliness of the original routing is set as a constraint condition. The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mental processes and mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of wherein the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized is determined…; determining… an associated line set corresponding to the stowage to be optimized according to the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized; generating… a line sub-network to be optimized according to the associated line set; obtaining… a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network to be optimized based on the line data of the line to be optimized and the stowage data of the stowage to be optimized; determining… a transportation cost type of a routing in the routing sub-networks to be optimized, wherein the transportation cost type comprises a less-than-truck load cost of a less-truck-load line on an original routing in the routing, a full-truck-load cost of a full-truck-load line on the original routing in the routing and an increased less-truck-load cost of an alternative line after stowage adjustment in the routing, the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line is obtained… by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized according to a remaining stowage capacity of the alternative line to reduce a cargo volume on the line to be optimized; obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; determining… a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; and obtaining… alternative routing of the stowage to be optimized by using a greedy algorithm to screen according to the original routing of the stowage to be optimized, wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost, minimum transition, or minimum number of transportation vehicles are set as an objective function, and service timeliness for the stowage of the alternative routing being not lower than corresponding service timeliness of the original routing is set as a constraint condition are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior includes determin[ing] associated routing of the stowage…, determining an associated line set…; generating a line sub-network to be optimized…; obtaining a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network…; determining a transportation cost type of a routing …; obtaining increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized…; obtaining the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs…; determining a target logistics routing network selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining alternate routing…; screen[ing] according to the original routing…; and following rules or instructions includes determin[ing] associated routing of the stowage…; determining an associated line set…; generating a line sub-network to be optimized…; obtaining a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network…; determining a transportation cost type of a routing …; obtaining increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized…; obtaining the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs…; determining a target logistics routing network selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining alternate routing…; screen[ing] according to the original routing… wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost…. The presence of generic computer components such as an electronic device, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer program, one or more processors, storage apparatus, tandem engine in a logistics field (i.e. relationship table, see Applicant Specification ¶[0045]) does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Also note that the mixed integer linear programming model in the selecting step is claimed at such a high level of detail that this could be performed by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the individual limitations of wherein the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized is determined…; determining… an associated line set corresponding to the stowage to be optimized according to the associated routing of the stowage to be optimized; generating… a line sub-network to be optimized according to the associated line set; obtaining… a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network to be optimized based on the line data of the line to be optimized and the stowage data of the stowage to be optimized; determining… a transportation cost type of a routing in the routing sub-networks to be optimized, wherein the transportation cost type comprises a less-than-truck load cost of a less-truck-load line on an original routing in the routing, a full-truck-load cost of a full-truck-load line on the original routing in the routing and an increased less-truck-load cost of an alternative line after stowage adjustment in the routing, the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line is obtained… by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized according to a remaining stowage capacity of the alternative line to reduce a cargo volume on the line to be optimized; obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; obtaining… alternative routing of the stowage to be optimized by using a greedy algorithm to screen according to the original routing of the stowage to be optimized, wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost, minimum transition, or minimum number of transportation vehicles are set as an objective function, and service timeliness for the stowage of the alternative routing being not lower than corresponding service timeliness of the original routing is set as a constraint condition as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an electronic device, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer program, one or more processors; storage apparatus, tandem engine in a logistics field (i.e. relationship table, see Applicant Specification ¶[0045]) nothing in the claim elements preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging associated routing of the stowage to be optimized, evaluating routing of the stowage and judging an associated line set, and judging a transportation cost type; generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating the associated line set and judging a line sub-network to be optimized; obtaining / adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating line data, stowage data, and the line sub-network to judge a routing sub-network; obtaining / adjusting in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating stowage and remaining stowage capacity to then judge the increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line; obtaining / summing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating transportation costs to judge the total costs; and obtaining / screening in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating transportation costs / minimum transition / minimum number of vehicles with original routing of the stowage and judging alternative routing. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Third, the individual limitations of obtaining… the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs corresponding to all transportation cost types according to the transportation cost type; and determining… a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing recite a mathematical formula or calculation that is used to obtain transportation cost; and a mathematical formula or relationship to find the minimum transportation cost routing of a routing network. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Note that in this claim, the obtaining / summing step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites performing a mathematical process (i.e. summing). Note that in this claim, the selecting step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because the claim explicitly recites using mixed integer linear programming. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships), then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 16-17, and 19 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities (and additionally mental processes and mathematical concepts) in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. electronic device, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer program, one or more processors; storage apparatus, tandem engine in a logistics field (i.e. relationship table, see Applicant Specification ¶[0045])) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). 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.
Next, the additional element of obtaining and its step of obtaining, by the one or more processors, line data of a line to be optimized, stowage data of stowage to be optimized, and associated routing of the stowage to be optimized according to business requirements of a business party is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining / generating), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the one or more processors (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the obtaining, and is representative of using a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding obtaining more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, while identified above as part of the certain methods of organizing human activities and mathematical concepts in Step 2A Prong One, note that the mixed integer linear programming model (e.g. determining a target logistics routing network by selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing) is claimed at such a high level of detail that it also only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (mixed integer linear programming / MILP) and which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding the model or algorithm, and at best he limitation more than using computers (e.g. electronic device, one or more processors), as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (selecting a minimum cost route). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding the model or algorithm. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (non-transitory computer readable medium, computer program, one or more processors, electronic device, storage apparatus, tandem engine in a logistics field (i.e. relationship table, see Applicant Specification ¶[0045])); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data gathering). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an electronic device, non-transitory computer readable medium, computer program, one or more processors, storage apparatus, tandem engine in a logistics field (i.e. relationship table, see Applicant Specification ¶[0045]) to perform determin[ing] associated routing of the stowage…, determining an associated line set…; generating a line sub-network to be optimized…; obtaining a routing sub-network to be optimized by adding corresponding line data and stowage data to the line sub-network…; determining a transportation cost type of a routing …; obtaining increased less-truck-load cost of the alternative line by adjusting stowage on the line to be optimized…; obtaining the transportation cost of the routing by summing transportation costs…; determining a target logistics routing network selecting a routing corresponding to a minimum transportation cost through a mixed integer linear programming model as the target routing; obtaining alternate routing…; screen[ing] according to the original routing… wherein at least one of lowest transportation cost… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See Applicant’s specification ¶[0026] describing various electronic devices having display screens including but not limited to desktop computers, portable computers, smartphones, tablet computers or the like at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See Applicant’s specification ¶[0045] describing determining associated routing by using a tandem engine (e.g. a relationship table) that includes information such as the path formed by each sorting center and the stowage on the path, the stowage code, the schedule, etc. at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the obtaining are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining / generating), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. electronics device, one or more processors) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these obtaining steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See Applicant’s specification ¶[0041], ¶[0045] describing obtaining line data and stowage data from the database of the logistics network at such a high level of detail that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity / mathematical concept elements regarding the mixed integer linear programming model is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of selecting the minimum routing), and also only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (mixed integer linear programming / MILP) and which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, see the background of the 2009 Zhang patent (US 7,590,067 B2) detailing the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this element (Zhang col 2 ln 16-22 details there are numerous methods for computing routes including Dijkstras’s algorithm and linear programming that are known). Also, see Applicant’s specification ¶[0073-84], ¶[0088] which illustrates a mathematical mixed integer programming model that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities (and mental processes / mathematical concepts) ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine logistics routes for lines / stowage), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See M