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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant’s claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions that the claims do not provide an integration and even when considered as an ordered combination, , the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
103
Applicant argues, “…contrary to the assertion in the Office Action, [0118]-[0119] of NANDA are completely silent about a maximum computation/calculation time. Instead, such disclosure of NANDA merely describes that target unit areas covering target locations may be determined, distances between the target unit areas may be determined from the distances between the target locations, and a target route linking the target unit areas may be determined. NANDA does not, however, disclose or teach a maximum computation/calculation time...” The Examiner disagrees. The cited portion of Nanda describes
[0117] At block 412, the processor 202 may record the candidate fulfillment plan generated at block 408 and the associated evaluation of the candidate fulfillment plan, for instance, in the memory 210. During a first iteration of blocks 408-412, the processor 202 may simply record the generated fulfillment plan. In further iterations, however, the processor 202 may update the recorded fulfillment plan and the associated evaluation to be the best fulfillment plan, e.g., the fulfillment plan that has the maximized compliance of the fulfillment plans that have been generated during the iterations.
[0118] At block 414, the processor 202 may execute the instructions 218 to increment the inner counter by 1. In addition, at block 416, the processor 202 may determine whether the inner counter is greater than R, e.g., whether each of the candidate groups of R random decision variables has been processed. In response to a determination that the inner counter is less than R, the processor 202 may repeat blocks 408-412 for the decision variable indicated by the inner counter, which has been increased by one since the prior iteration of blocks 408-412. In addition, the processor 202 may repeat blocks 408-416 until a determination is made at block 416 that the inner counter is greater than R.
[0119] In response to a determination at block 416 that the inner counter is greater than R, at block 418, the processor 202 may execute the instructions 218 to increment the outer counter by 1. In addition, at block 420, the processor 202 may determine whether the outer counter exceeds a certain maximum number of iterations. The certain maximum number of iterations may be user-defined and may be set to prevent the method 400 from repeating without stop and/or to generate and evaluate a certain number of candidate fulfillment plans. In response to a determination at block 420 that the maximum number of iterations has not been reached, the processor 202 may construct a population by selecting R random decision variables with a probability from the current candidate group of R random decision variables as indicated at block 422…”
As demonstrated by the cited portion of Nanda above and contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Nanda does teach a maximum computation/calculation time. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
provides a setting on which a user inputs setting items to be used at time of generating the delivery route of each of the plurality of persons, which is specified by connecting unit areas each including one or more delivery destinations, by repeatedly executing the generation of the delivery route for each of the plurality of persons and a process of balancing delivery included in the delivery route of each of the plurality of persons.
provides a result showing an outcome of the process of balancing delivery; and upon completion of the process of balancing delivery based on multiple setting items including a maximum computation time for repeating the generation of the delivery route and the process of balancing delivery input, provides the result indicating a completion status of the process of balancing delivery based on the multiple setting items.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “providing unit, setting screen, processor, memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, a providing unit, setting screen, processor, memory. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (setting screen, processor, memory)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component;
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 2-4, 6-8, describe a setting screen and clams 9-10 describe screens, these elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,565,543 in view of Nanda U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0260878 A1
As per Claims 1 and 11, Mo teaches a providing unit that provides a setting screen on which a user inputs a setting item to be used at the time of generating the delivery route of each of the plurality of persons (see Col. 19 lines 1-6), which is specified by connecting unit areas each including one or more delivery destinations (see Col. 19 lines 63-67 and Col. 20 lines 1-10), by repeatedly executing the generation of the delivery route of each of the plurality of persons and a process of balancing delivery included in the delivery route of each of the plurality of persons (see Col. 4. lines 23-25 and Col. 17 lines 9-13).
Mo does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Nanda provides a result screen showing an outcome of the process of balancing delivery; and
upon completion of the process of balancing delivery based on multiple setting items including a maximum computation time for repeating the generation of the delivery route and the process of balancing delivery input via the setting screen, provides the result screen indicating a completion status of the process of balancing delivery based on the multiple setting items (see para. 117-119). It would have been prima facie obvious tone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Mo to include the teachings of Nanda to prevent the method form repeating without stop.
As per Claim 2, Mo in view of Nanda teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Mo does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Nanda result screen
includes a recalculation operation unit that instructs the process of balancing delivery again (see para. 118-119). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill n the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Mo to include the teachings Nanda prevent the system from repeating without stop and/or to generate and evaluate a certain number of candidate fulfillment plans, as taught by the cited portion of Nanda.
As per Claim 3, Mo teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the setting screen is capable of designating a size of the unit area (see Col. 18 lines 15-35).
As per Claim 4, teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the setting screen is capable of designating a target of the balancing of the delivery (see Col. 4 lines 17-30).
As per Claim 5, Mo teaches the device of claim 4 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the target of the balancing of the delivery is any one of the number of times of delivery, a delivery distance, and a delivery time (see Col. 4 lines 32-59).
As per Claim 6, Mo teaches the device of claim 4 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the setting screen is capable of designating an acceptable value of a difference in the balancing of the delivery (see Col. 7 lines 52-59).
As per Claim 7, Mo teaches the device of claim 4 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the providing unit further provides a second setting screen on which at least the person to whom the delivery destination is assigned and a period are settable (see fig. 1A and Col. 17 lines 29-35).
As per Claim 8, Mo teaches the device of claim 7 as described above. Mo further teaches wherein the second setting screen is capable of displaying, for each item of the balancing, a total value of a result of the balancing for the plurality of persons (see Col. 16 lines 23-31 and fig. 1A).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,565,543 in view of in view of Nanda U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0260878 A1 in further view of Ide U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0133816 A1
As per Claim 9, Mo in view of Nanda teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Mo does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Ide wherein the providing unit further provides a first screen on which a delivery route of a plurality of delivery destinations assigned to a person is superimposed and displayed on a map of the delivery range (see para. 63 and fig. 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Mo to include the teachings of Ide to view the results of an optimization model as suggested by Ide.
As per Claim 10, Mo in view of Nanda teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Mo does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Ide wherein the providing unit further provides a second screen on which the number of a plurality of delivery destinations assigned to a person, which is totaled for each unit area, is superimposed and displayed on a map of the delivery range (see para. 63 and fig. 6). The motivation is the same as opined above.
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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628