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
Claims 1 – 9 & 11 – 21 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 11/05/2025. Claims 1, 12, & 21 were amended in a reply filed 02/04/2026. Claims 1 – 9 & 11 – 21 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections have been rendered moot in light of the currently amended claims.
The previous ‘signal per se’ rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in light of the currently amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues on pg. 8 that “the claims are unambiguously tied to computer technology. Rather than "merely recite the broad concept of optimizing a route" the claimed embodiments "overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” similarly to DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Applicant's invention has a vastly differing fact pattern from the invention of DDR, which entails the matching the ‘look and feel’ of a website. For example, the claims in DDR “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. Instead of the computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending the website visitor to the third-party website that appears to be connected with the clicked advertisement, the claimed system generates and directs the visitor to the above described hybrid web page that presents product information from the third-party and visual “look and feel” elements from the host website. When the limitations of the ’399 patent’s asserted claims are taken together as an ordered combination, the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” In stark contrast, the instant claims merely invoke a computing device as a tool on which the abstract idea of route optimization is to be implemented. The claims in DDR solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology; conversely, the shipping route optimization as recited in the instant claims is an abstract idea that is merely performed using generically-recited computing components, which amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant next argues on pp. 8 – 9, that under Step 2A, Prong One, “the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing systems to model and solve complex network distribution problems, rather than the abstract idea of business management itself” because the claims provide “a technical means of converting a network topology that is difficult for standard algorithms to process into a "target distribution network" that allows for the application of specific "first constraint conditions" (maximum carrying capacity).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the functions in the context of the claims encompass shipping route optimization. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Examiner further submits that the converting of a network topology into a target distribution network which allows for maximum carrying capacity is an abstract idea that would be performed as part of a commercial interaction or during business relations – regardless of any purported difficulty in the processing of this task. This routing optimization would be implemented during a commercial interaction or during business relations nonetheless. Additionally, paragraph [0020] of the instant specification states that the instant invention is directed to providing a “generated distribution route” that is “is more consistent with the actual distribution transportation route, then the transportation efficiency calculated based on the target distribution network is more accurate, and accordingly the selection of the distribution route with the smallest transportation efficiency is more authentic.” In other words, the instant specification clarifies that the instant claims are directed to routing optimization, rather than to “the capabilities of computing systems.” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues on pg. 9, that under Step 2A, Prong Two, “the claims recite additional elements that integrate the idea into a practical application” because the claimed sequence of steps “improves the accuracy of the computer's output and ensures the generated route matches physical reality.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the idea into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of “electronic device,” “processor,” “memory,” “a program or instruction stored on the memory and operable on the processor,” and “readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, all of the claimed additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Applicant next argues on pp. 9 – 10, that under Step 2B, that “the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they provide a specific inventive concept in the realm of computer data processing” because “the system can process logistics data with higher fidelity to the physical world, calculating "transportation efficiency" with greater precision than conventional methods.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated by the Court in Enfish, “the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. As noted infra, in Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computer-related § 101 cases we have issued in light of those Supreme Court decisions, it was clear that the claims were of the latter type—requiring that the analysis proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which asks if nevertheless there is some inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357–59. In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is not to an improvement to computer functionality itself, but “on economic or other tasks (i.e., optimizing routes by providing greater precision in the determination of transportation efficiency) for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” The instant claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity, which invokes generic computer components as a mere tool for implementation, rather to an improvement thereof. The claims are not directed to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or other technology; thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 – 9 & 11 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 12 is directed to a product. Claims 11 & 13 – 21 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 9 & 11 – 21 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 11, & 12 substantially recite: “generating an initial distribution network according to logistics-related information; constructing a virtual node based on a transit node in the initial distribution network, and adjusting the initial distribution network to a target distribution network; determining an objective function based on the target distribution network and the corresponding logistics-related information; wherein the objective function is used to represent a transportation efficiency of the target distribution network; and calculating the transportation efficiency corresponding to the target distribution network according to the objective function and a first constraint condition, so as to select a distribution route with a minimum transportation efficiency; wherein the first constraint condition is determined according to a maximum carrying capacity on the transit node.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass shipping route optimization. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, & 12, as a whole, amounts to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). Claim 1 does not recite any additional generic computer elements. Claim 11 recites the additional generic computer components of “electronic device,” “processor,” “memory,” “a program or instruction stored on the memory and operable on the processor.” Claim 12 recites the additional generic computer components of “readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction” and “processor.”
The additional elements of “electronic device,” “processor,” “memory,” “a program or instruction stored on the memory and operable on the processor,” and “readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: “electronic device,” “processor,” “memory,” “a program or instruction stored on the memory and operable on the processor,” and “readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 9 & 13 – 21 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “preset solver” in claims 8 & 19 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights