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 .
Priority
Application 18/733,920 was filed on June 5, 2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-124925, filed on July 31, 2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are currently pending. Claims 1, 5, and 6 were amended in the reply filed September 10, 2025. Claim 2 was cancelled.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a technical improvement that “directly improves the functioning of the computer itself and the technical field of delivery management system”. Specifically, “the efficiency management of data and computational resources within the computer system” (Remarks p. 10). Applicant further describes how the claimed invention “enables more effective management of moving bodies and packages, leading to a tangible improvement in efficiency of package transportation management” (Remarks, p. 11-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite generic computer components, described at a high level of detail and functioning in their ordinary capacity. Any improvements are directed towards performing the abstract idea faster or more efficiently on a computer. This is not an improvement to the computer itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) - “Similarly, ‘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”). Similarly, any improvements to delivery management are improvements to the abstract idea of creating delivery plans, not any other technology or technical field. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement to a technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant cites generating a table including “pre-processing a vast amount of delivery data” as an example of steps that are not a mental process or method of organizing human activity (Remarks p. 11). Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to only be directed towards the claims reciting a mental process and clarifies that “certain methods of organizing human activity” is a separate grouping of abstract idea than “mental processes” with different criteria (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such, Examiner’s arguments are directed towards the claims reciting a mental process as well.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Nothing in applicant’s claims requires “vast amounts of data” to be processed. Examiner notes that there is no minimum number of entries for the table or potential third bases. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the relay candidate table can include only a small number of entries. Under such circumstances, it would be entirely practical for a human to calculate a time difference for each base pair and sort and exclude candidates based on the result.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and they are withdrawn. The closest prior art of record, cited both before and below, does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of limitations in any reasonable grouping.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, and 6 recite “the specifying of the third base includes: … and for the selected third base candidate, selecting, as the third moving body …” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error where there is an extra “and” in the list of steps (i.e. there is an “and” before a step that is not the last step in the list). For the purposes of Examination, the claim is interpreted to read, “the specifying of the third base includes: … for the selected third base candidate, selecting, as the third moving body …” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 5, and 6 recite, obtaining a first delivery plan including delivery information of a plurality of moving bodies;
generating a relay candidate table to store the generated relay candidate, the generating of the relay candidate table including, for each pair of a first base and a second base, identifying a plurality of potential third bases from among a plurality of bases in a first delivery plan stored in the memory, calculating a time difference between direct transportation from the first base to the second base and relayed transportation via each potential third base, including, as a plurality of third base candidates, only potential third bases where the calculated time difference is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and sorting the plurality of third base candidates in the relay candidate table based on an order of increasing travel time;
specifying a package to be delivered by a first moving body from the first base to the second base in the first delivery plan;
specifying, from among the plurality of third base candidates in the relay candidate table, a third base other than the first base and the second base and where delivery of the package from the first base to the third base is allocatable to a second moving body included in the first delivery plan and where delivery of the package from the third base to the second base is allocatable to a third moving body included in the first delivery plan;
creating a second delivery plan by replacing the delivery of the package from the first base to the second base by the first moving body with the delivery of the package from the first base to the third base by the second moving body and the delivery of the package from the third base to the second base by the third moving body;
and outputting the created second delivery plan,
the specifying of the third base includes:
selecting a third base candidate from the relay candidate table based on the sorted order of increasing travel time,
for the selected third base candidate, selecting, as the second moving body, from among the plurality of moving bodies included in the first delivery plan other than the first moving body, a moving body assigned to a delivery route that covers an entire segment from the first base to the third base candidate in the first delivery plan, and
for the selected third base candidate, selecting, as the third moving body, from among the plurality of moving bodies included in the first delivery plan other than the first moving body, a moving body assigned to a delivery route that covers an entire segment from the third base candidate to the second base in the first delivery plan,
determining if the delivery of the package is able to be allocated to the identified second and third moving bodies while satisfying a plurality of predefined allocation constraints including at least delivery timeframes and loading capacities, and in a case where the determining indicates that the allocation to the identified second and third moving bodies is feasible, selecting the third base candidate as the third base and the identified second and third moving bodies for the package.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, creating delivery plans for packages is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to obtain a delivery plan, generate a relay candidate table (including calculating a time difference and sorting candidates), specify a package, specify a third base (including satisfying constraints and assigning delivery routes to moving bodies), and create a delivery plan can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 5, and 6 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 6 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (claim 1), a memory (claims 1, 5, and 6), a computer (claims 1 and 5), and a processor (claim 6). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 5, and 6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 3 recites additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claim 3 is also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 5, and 6.
Allowable over Prior Art
Available prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach the following limitations in independent claims 1, 5, and 6:
“the generating of the relay candidate table including, for each pair of a first base and a second base, … calculating a time difference between direct transportation from the first base to the second base and relayed transportation via each potential third base, including, as a plurality of third base candidates, only potential third bases where the calculated time difference is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and sorting the plurality of third base candidates in the relay candidate table based on an order of increasing travel time”
“selecting a third base candidate from the relay candidate table based on the sorted order of increasing travel time”
Examiner notes that there is a 101 rejection of the claims as well as an objection to the claims. The following are the closest prior art:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0230023 to Khaleghi et al. (Khaleghi) teaches selecting a “transshipment hub” (i.e. third base) from a list of candidates. The list can be ranked, but not necessarily by travel time. However, Khaleghi does not teach determining the time difference between direct and relayed transportation or selecting a third base based on travel time.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0054549 to Chittenden et al. (Chittenden) teaches a “route segment table” and a “transfer set table” that are used to select a delivery route through multiple connectable transit stations (i.e. third bases). However, Chittenden does not teach determining the time difference between direct and relayed transportation, ordering the table, or selecting a third base based on travel time.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0019501 to Olechko et al. (Olechko) teaches calculating a “deviation” (i.e. time difference) for a single vehicle driving routes that include different waypoints (i.e. third bases) and only considering routes that meet a time threshold. However, Olechko does not teach a relay candidate table or relayed transportation.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0078802 to Yonezawa et al. (Yonezawa) teaches generating a table for the times/distances between distribution centers and delivery destinations. A delivery plan evaluation unit evaluates delivery plans by the use of an objective function such as the total operating time of the delivery vehicles, etc. However, Yonezawa does not teach determining the time difference between direct and relayed transportation, ordering the table, or selecting a third base based on the sorted order of increasing travel time.
NPL “Transshipment hub selection from a shipper’s and freight forwarder’s perspective” to Chen et al. (Chen) teaches transshipment hub selection based on a number if factors including travel time. However, Chen does not teach using a relay candidate table or selecting a third base based on the sorted order of increasing travel time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628