DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application 18/834,421 filed on 7/30/2024. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 were amended, claim 6 was cancelled, and claim 11 was newly added in the reply filed on 10/24/2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending. This action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the limitation the communication network in lines 27, 23, and 24, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, before each respective recitation of the term the communication network in claims 1, 9, and 10, there are two recitations of the term a communication network. On their own, two recitations of the term a communication network does not rise to the level of a matter of indefiniteness. Instead, it is a matter of breadth. This is because the second recitation of the term a communication network may be referring to the same network as the first recitation, or it may be referring to a different communication network. There is support for either of these interpretations in spec. para. [0148]. When the term the communication network is recited, however, it is unclear which communication network it is referring to since the claims are broad enough to include more than one communication network. Specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the second recitation of a communication network in claim 1 line 20, claim 9 line 16, and claim 10 line 17 will be interpreted as the communication network. This narrows the scope of the claims to include a single communication network.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon 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 1-5 and 7-11 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, and 10 recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the following: receive, from one or more user terminals via a communication network: condition values for a plurality of constraint conditions related to a joint delivery combining a plurality of shipments using one or more vehicles, the plurality of constraint conditions comprising delivery dates and times for the plurality of shipments, and an expected amount of load, for each of the plurality of shipments, on a delivery date; perform a plurality of simulations of the joint delivery, wherein each of the plurality of simulations comprises: estimating a first index value, based on the condition values simulating a change in at least one of the condition values within a predefined range; and estimating a second index value based on the at least one changed condition value; receive, from a first user terminal via a communication network, information indicating a predetermined criterion with respect to a variation between the first index value and the second index value; identify a constraint condition in which a variation in the first index value and the second index value, as estimated in one of the plurality of simulations, satisfies the predetermined criterion; and transmit, to the first user terminal via the communication network, information to cause the first user terminal to display, for the identified constraint condition: a recommendation to change at least one of the condition values, and variation of the index values, wherein the first index value, in at least one of the plurality of simulations, indicates a number of the one or more vehicles, wherein the change, in at least one of the plurality of simulations, comprises changing a time zone of delivery for at least a portion of one of the plurality of shipments, the portion being scheduled for delivery on a first date on which an estimated number of the one or more vehicles is greater than an estimated number of the one or more vehicles required for a second date, and wherein the second index value, in the at least one of the plurality of simulations, indicates the number of the one or more vehicles after the change. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 10 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a system, a method, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
The claim limitations receive ... condition values for a plurality of constraint conditions related to a joint delivery combining a plurality of shipments using one or more vehicles, the plurality of constraint conditions comprising delivery dates and times for the plurality of shipments, and an expected amount of load, for each of the plurality of shipments, on a delivery date; perform a plurality of simulations of the joint delivery, wherein each of the plurality of simulations comprises: estimating a first index value, based on the condition values simulating a change in at least one of the condition values within a predefined range; and estimating a second index value based on the at least one changed condition value; receive ... information indicating a predetermined criterion with respect to a variation between the first index value and the second index value; identify a constraint condition in which a variation in the first index value and the second index value, as estimated in one of the plurality of simulations, satisfies the predetermined criterion; and transmit ... information ... to display, for the identified constraint condition: a recommendation to change at least one of the condition values, and variation of the index values, wherein the first index value, in at least one of the plurality of simulations, indicates a number of the one or more vehicles, wherein the change, in at least one of the plurality of simulations, comprises changing a time zone of delivery for at least a portion of one of the plurality of shipments, the portion being scheduled for delivery on a first date on which an estimated number of the one or more vehicles is greater than an estimated number of the one or more vehicles required for a second date, and wherein the second index value, in the at least one of the plurality of simulations, indicates the number of the one or more vehicles after the change, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts which may be categorized as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices (e.g., shipping/logistics)). That is, nothing in the claim discloses anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices (e.g., shipping/logistics)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.-
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using a delivery assistance system (claim 1), a memory (claim 1), at least one processor (claim 1), one or more user terminals (claims 1, 9, and 10), a communication network (claims 1, 9, and 10), a first user terminal (claims 1, 9, and 10), a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (claim 10), and a computer (claim 10). The claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the aforementioned additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a delivery assistance system (described in spec. para. [0144-0145]), a memory (described in spec. para. [0146]), at least one processor (described in spec. para. [0146]), one or more user terminals (described in spec. para. [0046]), a communication network (described in spec. para. [0148]), a first user terminal (described in spec. para. [0046]), a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (described in spec. para. [0150]), and a computer (described in spec. para. [0145]) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional elements are described at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claim 7 recites the additional element a second user terminal this claimed component is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a generic computer component to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the aforementioned additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of claim 7 a second user terminal (described in spec. para. [0046]) is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. All of the additional elements are described at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-5 and 7-11 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being anticipated by Levanon (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0227888). Other relevant references include: Rajkhowa (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0330346), Perez (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0174093), Brady (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0024554), and Knapp (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0269521). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628