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 Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 18 of March 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 have been amended.
Claims 7-8 have been added.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Objection
The objection to the tile has been addressed, and is withdrawn.
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C 112 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that amended claim 1 recites significantly more than merely scoring a driver or route. For instance, amended claim 1 recites that the information processing device is configured to determine second route information so as to follow at least a part of the first route information. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior to the advent of computers and IoT, dispatchers and/or other professionals would draft routes and improve routes based on lessons learned from drivers. Additionally, delivery drivers would exchange critical information via Citizens Band (CB) radios, often in real-time in order to disclose route conditions to include any accidents, poor weather conditions, poor road conditions and so forth. Therefore, this falls squarely under mental processes bucket within the abstract ideas under 2A Prong I. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "A process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible." See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The court held that claims directed to selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, set forth an abstract concept.); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"); In re Downing, 754 F. App'x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("This court has consistently treated inventions directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information as abstract ideas."); In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("We have held in the computer context that 'collecting information' and 'analyzing' that information are within the realm of abstract ideas."); Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366 -1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Claim for standardizing data to be conveyed to a bedside device for graphical display was directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data."). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are objected to as being currently rejected as below, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action. The prior art of record most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention includes Ferguson (US 20170270789), Wuorinen et. al. (US 20220101249), Nygren et. al. (US 20220101249), and Rao et. al. (US 20170091708).
Ferguson teaches systems and methods for designing a preferred route for a vehicle. The route designing system receives a request from the vehicle for a preferred route from a first geographical point to a second geographical point. The route designing system analyzes the request and obtains driving scores associated with drivers of other vehicles. The route designing unit may identify a set of preferred and non-preferred vehicles based on the driving scores. The route designing system then determines a preferred route based, at least in part, on the driving scores associated with drivers of the other vehicles. The preferred route is designed to minimize the likelihood of proximity to non-preferred vehicles and maximize the likelihood of proximity to preferred vehicles.
Wuorinen teaches apparatuses, methods, and systems are provided of a backend server communicating with vehicles equipped with an ePallet to identify delivery damage-causing events by a processor communicating with delivery vehicles with an ePallets in a transport of a package in delivery to customers; receiving location to identify locations that exhibit a likelihood to cause damage to the package; determining a location that exhibits the likelihood to cause package damage by analysis of acceleration data received from a first accelerometer located with the delivery vehicle and a second accelerometer located with the ePallet; compiling a set of events based on acceleration data from the first and second accelerometer indicative of an ePallet's movement desynced to a delivery vehicle's movement that can cause package damage; and notifying the delivery vehicle of an event likely causing package damage so the delivery vehicle can re-route navigation of the package delivery to prevent package damage.
Nygren teaches a method for estimating a level of damage to perishable cargo during transportation of the cargo using data collected by a portable monitoring device. The method includes measuring vibrational data associated with the cargo. The vibrational data is monitored by a vibration sensor of the portable monitoring device. The method further includes incrementing a counter in the portable monitoring device in response to an amplitude of the measured vibrational data exceeding a predetermined threshold. The method also includes determining if the counter value exceeds a predetermined value, and generating an alert indicating damage to the cargo in response to determining the counter value has exceeded the predetermined value.
Rao teaches techniques for managing notifications may be described. In an example, the notifications may relate to an item and may be provided to a user device. An active device may be associated with the item. The active device may store a token for communication with a local area network associated with a location. Based on the communication, a determination may be made that the item may be in proximity to the location. Corresponding notifications may be sent to the user device.
None of the above prior art explicitly teaches “the information processing device is configured to determine the second route information so as to follow at least a part of the first route information when the score of the delivery person and the score of the first route information is larger than a first predetermined value” and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-8 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided below.
Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “an information processing device; and a terminal device associated with the delivery person or associated with a vehicle to be driven by the delivery person, wherein: the terminal device is configured to transmit first route information of the vehicle to the information processing device, the information processing device is configured to score driving of the delivery person and to score the first route information of the vehicle based on delivery result information on the delivery item, the information processing device is configured to determine second route information to be presented to another delivery person based on a score of the delivery person and on a score of the first route information, and the information processing device is configured to determine the second route information so as to follow at least a part of the first route information when the score of the delivery person and the score of the first route information is larger than a first predetermined value”. Claims 6 and 8 disclose similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 6, and 8 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” such as scoring a driver or route as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will 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 judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 6, and 8 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional element “vibration detection device”, and “luggage storage device”. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶75 “a general-purpose computer may function as the terminal device 10 or the information processing device 20 according to the above-described embodiment. Specifically, a program describing each function of the terminal device 10 or each function of the information processing device 20 according to the above-described embodiment is stored in a memory of a general-purpose computer, and the program is read and executed by a processor. Therefore, the present disclosure can also be realized as a program that can be executed by the processor or a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores the program”.
Claims 2-4 and 7 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights