Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-8 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12/09/2025 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 5 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 7, the corresponding §112(b) rejections have been overcome and withdrawn herein accordingly.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 5 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-8 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 3 of this final office action.
On page 5 of the Response, the Applicant submits “Applicant has amended claims 1-8 to advance prosecution of the subject application. In view of these amendments, Applicant respectfully requests that the §101 rejections to claim 1-8 be withdrawn”. In view of the amendments to independent claims 1, 7, and 8, the Examiner has set forth an amended §101 rejection with respect to the amendments that may be found starting on page 3 herein.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 5-6 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 7-8, the corresponding §103 rejection have been overcome. The Examiner has provided a statement of reasons for finding the claims to overcome the prior art of record that may be found starting on page 11 herein.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1 and 3-6 are directed to a manufacture (“a delivery support device”), claim 7 is directed to a process (“a method”), and claim 8 is directed to a manufacture (“a non-transitory computer-readable medium”). Thus, claims 1 and 3-8 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1 and 3-8, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Derive a route for a delivery apparatus, to minimize a maximum value of an exhaustion time of a resource at a plurality of first locations, based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem of aggregating a plurality of second locations of which a delivery order is not determined among the plurality of first locations into one point; and
Output the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource at the plurality of first locations, wherein each of the plurality of first locations is associated with the exhaustion time of the resource and a stay time of the delivery apparatus; and
[…] select a first route for delivering the resource to the plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and the stay time; and
[…] calculate a lower limit value of the maximum value based on the first route.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-6, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem and calculating a lower limit value of a maximum value based on a first route recite concepts of mathematical calculations, which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route for a delivery apparatus, outputting the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource, and selecting routes for delivering the resource to a plurality of locations recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of providing/following instructions by a person. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The specification does not suggest or indicate that the delivery vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or is automatically operated. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, it is contemplated that the delivery vehicle may be operated by a human driver and the derived route is output to a driver of the vehicle for execution of the delivery of the resources.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “derivation unit”, “one or more processors”, a “first route selection unit including one or more processors”, and a “first calculation unit including one or more processors”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding independent claim 7, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Deriving a route for a delivery apparatus, to minimize a maximum value of an exhaustion time of a resource at a plurality of first locations based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem of aggregating a plurality of second locations of which a delivery order is not determined among the plurality of first locations into one point;
Outputting the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource at the plurality of first locations;
Selecting a first route for delivering the resource to the plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and the stay time; and
Calculating a lower limit value of the maximum value based on the first route, wherein each of the plurality of first locations is associated with the exhaustion time of the resource and a stay time of the delivery apparatus.
Therefore, claim 7 recites concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 7 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem and calculating a lower limit value of a maximum value based on a first route recite concepts of mathematical calculations, which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route for a delivery apparatus, outputting the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource, and selecting routes for delivering the resource to a plurality of locations recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of providing/following instructions by a person. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The specification does not suggest or indicate that the delivery vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or is automatically operated. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, it is contemplated that the delivery vehicle may be operated by a human driver and the derived route is output to a driver of the vehicle for execution of the delivery of the resources.
Independent claim 7 does not recite any additional elements, as each of the limitations of claim 7 are considered to recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not recite any additional elements.
Finally, the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Deriving a route for a delivery apparatus, to minimize a maximum value of an exhaustion time of a resource at a plurality of first locations based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem of aggregating a plurality of second locations of which a delivery order is not determined among the plurality of first locations into one point; and
Outputting the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource at the plurality of first locations,
Selecting a first route for delivering the resource to the plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and the stay time; and
Calculating a lower limit value of the maximum value based on the first route, wherein each of the plurality of first locations is associated with the exhaustion time of the resource and a stay time of the delivery apparatus.
Therefore, claim 8 recites concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 8 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route based on a branch-and-bound method using a relaxation problem and calculating a lower limit value of a maximum value based on a first route recite concepts of mathematical calculations, which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards deriving a route for a delivery apparatus, outputting the derived route to the delivery apparatus for execution of the delivery of the resource, and selecting routes for delivering the resource to a plurality of locations recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of providing/following instructions by a person. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The specification does not suggest or indicate that the delivery vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or is automatically operated. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, it is contemplated that the delivery vehicle may be operated by a human driver and the derived route is output to a driver of the vehicle for execution of the delivery of the resources.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers, which upon execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 further defines the collected information utilized to perform the abstract idea (“the stay time is independent among the plurality of first locations”. Thus, the limitations of claim 3 merely further describe the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 4 further describes steps for analyzing information (“calculate an idle time associated with each of the plurality of second locations according to a movement time of the delivery apparatus between the plurality of second locations”, “calculate the lower limit value further based on the idle time”. Thus, claim 4 further describes the concepts of mental processes and mathematical calculations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the derivation unit”, “a second calculation unit, including one or more processors”, and “the first calculation unit”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 further describes analyzing information (“the first route is an optimal solution based on a delivery delay time minimization problem in a scheduling problem”), and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 further describes analyzing information (“select a second route for delivering the resource to the plurality of first locations based on the exhaustion time”, “calculate an upper limit value of the maximum value based on the second route”). Thus, claim 6 further describes the concepts of mental processes and mathematical calculations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the derivation unit”, “a second route selection unit, including one or more processors”, and “a third calculation unit, including one or more processors”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “a delivery support program for causing a computer to function as each unit included in the delivery support device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 3-8 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1 and 3-8 as being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1 and 7-8. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Ogawa et al. “A route searching method using two-dimensional coordinates” (2020);
Lindawati U.S. Publication No. 2018/0032955;
Balcik “Last Mile Distribution in Humanitarian Relief” (2008);
Ogawa discloses route searching methods for determining the most appropriate route for distribution of supplies to disaster areas. The paper proposes a route searching method that minimizes periods of supply disruption at each point, and describes in detail a relaxation problem for the disclosed branch-and-bound method. Ogawa, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1 and 7-8. In particular, Ogawa does not teach selecting a first route for delivering a resource to a plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and stay time, and calculating a lower limit value of the maximum value of a time (during which the resource is exhausted at a plurality of first locations) based on the first route.
Lindawati discloses a framework for routing and scheduling a fleet of vehicles for servicing a set of requests with narrow time windows that minimizes the total waiting time of the vehicles. A set of requests associated with narrow time windows for delivering items is received, and route representations representing fleet routes for delivering items for the requests by a fleet of vehicles are generated Selection, specific crossover, and mutation operations are performed iteratively on route representations to increase feasibility of the route representations. Lindawati, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1 and 7-8. In particular, Lindawati does not teach selecting a first route for delivering a resource to a plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and stay time, and calculating a lower limit value of the maximum value of a time (during which the resource is exhausted at a plurality of first locations) based on the first route.
Balcik discloses methods related to last mile distribution of supplies in disaster relief operations. Balcik proposes a mixed integer programming model that determines delivery schedules for vehicle and equitably allocates resources, based on supply, vehicle capacity, and delivery time restrictions. Moreover, the model accounts for supply criticalities and population vulnerabilities while allocating resources among demand points. Balcik, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 1 and 7-8. In particular, Balcik does not teach selecting a first route for delivering a resource to a plurality of second locations based on a sum of the exhaustion time and stay time, and calculating a lower limit value of the maximum value of a time (during which the resource is exhausted at a plurality of first locations) based on the first route.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights