DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 2/12/2026, Applicant, on 4/27/2026, amended Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12, and cancelled Claims 2-3 and 8-9. Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding the Claim Interpretation and 35 USC §112(a) and (b) rejections – The rejections and interpretation have been removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Software Per Se – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the analysis of the 2019 PEG, then states that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because claim 1 recites elements that improve the devising of a transportation plan which enhances package transportation efficiency, and that this is an improvement in a technology or technical field. Examiner disagrees as first, the MPEP is the guidance that is used which incorporates the 2019 PEG, and the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at an abstraction, that of creating/devising a transportation plan. The use of a computer/apparatus with a screen, processor, and storage device does not make the claim eligible, and this is utilization of current technologies such as a computer to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. The purported improvement, that of enhancing package transportation efficiency through creation of the transportation plan would be an improvement in the abstraction. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to computer system, processor, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant asserts that the claims recite significantly more by citing BASCOM and the amended limitations, and stating that the claims are not directed to routine, conventional, or well-known activities and thus are eligible under 101. Examiner disagrees as this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101 and Applicant has not stated what additional elements would be improved or combination thereof. Further, the claims as a whole, alone or in combination, do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to computer system, processor, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they recite merely receiving, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC § 103 – The rejection is hereby removed for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below
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.
Alice - Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitations of stores and retains package information which is information about each of the requested packages, vehicle information which is information about each of transportation vehicles for transporting the packages, and driver information which is information about each of drivers who drive the transportation vehicles, respectively (Collecting and Storing Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and creates the transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route, based on the package information, the vehicle information, and the driver information and allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), allocates a plurality of the transportation vehicles, which perform platooning, or the transportation vehicle for towing a plurality of towed vehicles to the transportation group as necessary (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), create a relay base candidate, which is a candidate for a relay base where the packages to be transported are relayed, for each of the transportation requests (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), form one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route via the relevant relay base candidate, and which share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), create the transportation plan by allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generate relay base combinations of multiple patterns by changing the relay base for each of some or all of the transportation requests (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), create one or a plurality of the transportation groups for each of the generated relay base combinations (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), create, for each of the relay base combinations, the transportation plan by allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), evaluate each of the transportation plans created by the transportation plan creation unit to determine the transportation plan that is most highly evaluated (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and transmit the most highly evaluated transportation plan for each driver to each driver, respectively, for display (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgement, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a transportation planning apparatus, a storage device, a driver schedule display screen which is configured to include a driver schedule display area and a driver traveling route display area, and a processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior. For example, creating a transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route… and allocating the transportation vehicles encompasses a tow truck fleet manager allocating tow trucks to areas in groups which can overlap for better coverage based on the information available to them, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The transportation planning apparatus, storage device, driver schedule display screen which is configured to include a driver schedule display area and a driver traveling route display area, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0018] In the embodiment, processing performed by executing a program may be described. Under this circumstance, a computer causes a processor (such as a CPU or a GPU) to execute a program(s) and perform processing defined by the program(s) while using storage resources (such as a memory), interface devices (such as communication ports), and so on. Therefore, the subject of the processing performed by executing the program may be the processor. ”
Which shows that any generic computer can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., as there is no description of the units, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the apparatus, device, screen, etc., nor the receiving, storing, or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-6 and 10-12 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of multiple units such as a relay base candidate creation unit and transportation group creation unit, which are all highly generalized as per Applicant’s Specification when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they 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. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Lecue (U.S. Publication No. 2019/030,3857), Purohit (U.S. Publication No. 2023/029,7933), and Ko (U.S. Publication No. 2020/000,5240). Lecue, a system for collaborative logistics using a collaborative logistics map and a knowledge graph, teaches a transportation planning apparatus comprising: a storage unit that stores and retains package information which is information about each of the requested packages, vehicle information which is information about each of transportation vehicles for transporting the packages, and driver information which is information about each of drivers who drive the transportation vehicles, respectively, a control unit that creates the transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route, based on the package information, the vehicle information, and the driver information and allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups, wherein the control unit allocates a plurality of the transportation vehicles, which perform platooning, or the transportation vehicle for towing a plurality of towed vehicles to the transportation group as necessary, a transportation group creation unit that forms one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and which share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route, a transportation plan creation unit that creates the transportation plan by allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups, and a relay base candidate creation unit, but it does not explicitly teach to create a relay base candidate. Purohit, a system for travel plan based shipments, teaches a relay base candidate, which is a candidate for a relay base where the packages to be transported are relayed, for each of the transportation requests and via the relevant relay base candidate where a service request is used which defined the requirement of who delivers using intermediary locations, and wherein the storage unit stores a request for a means of transport for each of the drivers from a base which is a place of affiliation to a relay base or a delivery destination base, but neither it nor Lecue teaches generating relay base combinations of multiple patterns by changing the relay base for each of some or all of the transportation requests, or creating the transportation plan which is based on these. Ko, a delivery planning device, delivery planning system, and delivery planning method, teaches sharing a delivery vehicle between drivers as short-time workers even in the same delivery area to prevent working hours for delivery from increasing, relay place is a position where, when a delivery vehicle between drivers as short-time workers even in the same delivery area to prevent working hours for delivery from increasing, the delivery vehicle is shared, and a maximum load weight, maximum load volume, and maximum number of joint deliveries, but does not teach the generating of relay base combinations of multiple patterns by changing the relay base for each of some or all of the transportation requests, or creating the transportation plan which is based on these. None of the prior art explicitly teaches this generating relay base combinations of multiple patterns by changing the relay base for each of some or all of the transportation requests, or creating the transportation plan which is based on these, along with the other limitations of the claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1 and 7, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230297933 A1
Purohit; Dilip Shriram
SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL PLAN BASED SHIPMENTS
US 20230259870 A1
MANOHAR; Abhijeet et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTI-ENTERPRISE FREIGHT LOAD CONSOLIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION
US 20200005240 A1
KO; Sozen et al.
DELIVERY PLANNING DEVICE, DELIVERY PLANNING SYSTEM, AND DELIVERY PLANNING METHOD
US 20190303857 A1
LECUE; Freddy et al.
SYSTEM FOR COLLABORATIVE LOGISTICS USING A COLLABORATIVE LOGISTICS MAP AND A KNOWLEDGE GRAPH
US 20250140101 A1
Fucci; Conor et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA EXCHANGE SYSTEM
US 20240311745 A1
GUTLAPALLI; Venu et al.
ITEM TRACKING SYSTEM WITH ELECTRONIC TRACKING LABELS THAT DETECTS SHIPMENT FAULTS
US 20240270538 A1
GIL; Julio et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERING OR ACCEPTING A PARCEL AT A ROOFTOP VIA AN AERIAL VEHICLE
US 20240255960 A1
SHIM; Taehyoung et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTONOMOUS DELIVERY ROBOT-BASED DELIVERY SERVICE
US 20240161636 A1
KIMCHI; Gur et al.
Aerial Vehicle Delivery Location
US 20240152995 A1
SIMPSON; Erik M.
Financial Swap Payment Structure Method and System on Transportation Capacity Unit Assets
US 20230059112 A1
ITO; Yutaro
SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CREATING VEHICLE DISPATCH PLAN
US 20230045975 A1
Simpson; Erik Mowery
Financial Swap Index Method and System on Transportation Capacity Units and Trading Derivative Products Based Thereon
US 20220412750 A1
KOLAMBEKAR; AMIT et al.
DYNAMIC RESPONSIVE TRANSIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20220297835 A1
LIM; Seung Han et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HANDLING GOODS BY A GROUP OF COLLABORATING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
US 20200219017 A1
Simpson; Erik M.
MARKET LAYER PRICE QUEUE MAP ROUTING FOR MULTI-LAYERED NODAL NETWORK TOPOLOGY FOR A MULTI-MODAL SECURE FORWARD MARKET AUCTION IN TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY AND SPACE
US 20200011683 A1
Simpson; Erik M
FINANCIAL SWAP INDEX METHOD AND SYSTEM ON TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY UNITS AND TRADING DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS BASED THEREON
US 20110137699 A1
Ben-Ari; Ronen et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CAB MANAGEMENT
US 12459544 B2
Van Der Donk; Johannes Gertrudis Josephus
Flexible combined transport of people and freight
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/2/2026
Prosecution Insights