DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 01/20/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025. Claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-23, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14 and 17-20 “the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem by improving the logistics of transportation by creating an optimum plan of a logistics network with small change in structure of items such as warehouses and transporting means”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the problem is a technical problem. Applicant’s invention seeks to solve the issue of “bias of load among the warehouses”. Load balancing between warehouses is a business problem as Applicant seeks to optimize the package handling amount/package route by “balancing” the warehouse and transportation means.
Accordingly, “improving the logistics of transportation” is providing a solution to a business problem which is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Additionally, “creating an optimum plan” is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.05(A) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Applicant further argues on pages 22-23 that Applicant’s claim are significant as the claim provides a specific technique for improving the logistics of transportation and includes limitations that Examiner agrees are not disclosed in prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated previously, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Further Applicant’s additional elements are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, or field of use which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and are not enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
35 USC § 102/103
In the non-final rejection, Examiner indicated the lack of any combination of available prior art which teaches or suggests all the limitations within Claim 2. Applicant incorporated the subject matter of Claim 2 into independent Claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 and 3-13 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.
Claim 1 and Claim 13 recite the limitation “the logistics network analysis unit” and “the logistics network optimization unit” in “the logistics network analysis unit provides to the warehouse, a warehouse role in accordance with whether the transportation of the package to the warehouse is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, and whether the transportation of the package from the warehouse to the warehouse of the next movement destination is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, … the logistics network optimization unit constructs the optimization problem so that a transportation cost becomes lower as divergence from the warehouse role is smaller”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent Claims 3-12 inherit the rejection as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim. Examiner recommends Applicant amend the limitations to recite “a logistics network analysis unit” and “a logistics network optimization unit”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the output unit" in “the output unit provides a user interface (UI) screen in accordance with the logistics network plan data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Similarly, Claim 8 recites the limitation "the output unit" in “the output unit outputs the logistics network plan data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 3-13 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 and 3-12 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and Claim 13 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, all the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 recites the limitations of: …receives, as an input, existing logistics network data that is data relating to an existing logistics network constituted with a plurality of package routes including two or more warehouses from a first departure warehouse to a last arrival warehouse of a package as components; analyze the existing logistics network data to specify a logistics network feature that is a feature of the existing logistics network; construct an optimization problem that minimizes a target based on one or a plurality of indexes, based on the logistics network feature and derives an optimum package route by solving the optimization problem; output logistics network plan data that is data representing a planned logistics network including the derived package route; wherein the existing logistics network data includes data representing departure time and departure and arrival time for each of the warehouses constituting the package route of the package and a transporter on the package route on an inter-warehouse basis for each of the plurality of packages and includes data representing an area for each warehouse, for each warehouse at which the package is unloaded and loaded, in a case where a transporter that has transported the package to the warehouse is different from a transporter that has transported the package from the warehouse to a warehouse of the next movement destination for each package, … provides to the warehouse, a warehouse role in accordance with whether the transportation of the package to the warehouse is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, and whether the transportation of the package from the warehouse to the warehouse of the next movement destination is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, the branch line transportation is transportation between warehouses located in the same area, the trunk line transportation is transportation between warehouses located in different areas, the logistics network feature includes a warehouse role feature relating to one or more warehouse roles of the warehouse during a fixed period for each of the warehouses, and … constructs the optimization problem so that a transportation cost becomes lower as divergence from the warehouse role is smaller.
Independent Claim 13 recites the limitations of: inputting existing logistics network data that is data relating to an existing logistics network constituted with a plurality of package routes including two or more warehouses from a first departure warehouse to a last arrival warehouse of a package as components; analyzing the existing logistics network data to specify a logistics network feature that is a feature of the existing logistics network; constructing an optimization problem that minimizes a target based on one or a plurality of indexes, based on the logistics network feature and derives an optimum package route by solving the optimization problem; outputting logistics network plan data that is data representing a planned logistics network including the derived package route; wherein the existing logistics network data includes data representing departure time and departure and arrival time for each of the warehouses constituting the package route of the package and a transporter on the package route on an inter-warehouse basis for each of the plurality of packages and includes data representing an area for each warehouse, for each warehouse at which the package is unloaded and loaded, in a case where a transporter that has transported the package to the warehouse is different from a transporter that has transported the package from the warehouse to a warehouse of the next movement destination for each package, … provides to the warehouse, a warehouse role in accordance with whether the transportation of the package to the warehouse is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, and whether the transportation of the package from the warehouse to the warehouse of the next movement destination is branch line transportation or trunk line transportation, the branch line transportation is transportation between warehouses located in the same area, the trunk line transportation is transportation between warehouses located in different areas, the logistics network feature includes a warehouse role feature relating to one or more warehouse roles of the warehouse during a fixed period for each of the warehouses, and … constructs the optimization problem so that a transportation cost becomes lower as divergence from the warehouse role is smaller.
Organizing Human Activity
The limitations of Claims 1 and 13 stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people or commercial/legal interactions). Specifically, commercial interactions or business relations directed to creating an optimum package route in light of paragraph 6-8 of Applicant’s specification “In this manner, in transportation among warehouses in the logistics network including so-called transfer center (TC)-type warehouses, a problem such as bias of load among the warehouses and/or decrease in a loading ratio of transportation means can occur. As a method for solving such a problem, while it is considered to change sorting performance and roles of the warehouses or reduce the number of transportation means, increase in change of substances such as warehouses and transportation means also increases load…According to the present invention, it is possible to create an optimum plan of a logistics network with small change of substances such as warehouses and transporters (transportation means).”
Mathematical Concepts
Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation of “construct” and “constructs” of Claim 1 and “constructing” and “constructs” of Claim 13 in light of the specification paragraph 143-145 includes mathematical calculations such as solving a constructed optimization problem through integer programming. Thus, the claims fall within the mathematical concepts grouping.
Accordingly, the limitations above recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the organizing human activity grouping and the mathematical concepts grouping) and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 and Claim 13 recite the additional elements of an input unit, at least one processor, a logistics network analysis unit, a logistics network optimization unit, and a computer. Each additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(f).
Additionally, Claim 1 and Claim 13 recite the limitations of “display the outputted logistics network plan data; and transmit an instruction to a vehicle based on the logistics network plan data to control operation of the vehicle” and “displaying, on a display device, the outputted logistics network plan data; and transmitting an instruction to a vehicle based on the logistics network plan data to control operation of the vehicle”.
“Display” and “displaying” are limitations reciting insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). “Transmit” and “transmitting” are limitations which are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations is limited to data such as logistics network plan data and further, the additional element which receives the transmitted data is limited to a vehicle in order to control the operation of the vehicle for purposes of commercial interactions/business relations. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, whether individually or viewed in an ordered combination, because mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and field of use does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an input unit, at least one processor, a logistics network analysis unit, a logistics network optimization unit, and a computer to perform the limitations noted above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Display” and “displaying” are limitations reciting insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data outputting which is similar to the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function of transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Again, “transmit” and “transmitting” are limitations which are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations is limited to data such as logistics network plan data and further, the additional element which receives the transmitted data is limited to a vehicle in order to control the operation of the vehicle for purposes of commercial interactions/business relations. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
None of the steps/functions of Claims 1 and 13 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity and mathematical concepts, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements of Claims 1 and 13 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or field of use which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, claims 1 and 13 are ineligible.
Dependent Claim 3 further specify what warehouse role features are and further how the optimization problem is constructed. Thus, further narrowing the abstract idea identified above.
Dependent Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 6 further specify what the existing logistics network data includes and what the workload is based on, what the logistics network feature includes, and how the optimization problem is constructed. Thus, further narrowing the abstract idea identified above.
Dependent Claim 7 adds additional elements of an output unit that provides a user interface screen which displays data such as the logistics network plan data, a graph, and information on a plurality of warehouses. The output unit and user interface screen are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(f).
Dependent Claim 8 adds an additional element of an output unit that out puts the logistics network plan data and a transportation planning unit that generates transportation plans. The output unit and the transportation planning unit is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent Claim 9 further specifies what the existing logistics network data includes, determining a capacity upper limit between warehouses, and how the optimization problem is constructed. Thus, further narrowing the abstract idea identified above.
Dependent Claim 10, Claim 11, and Claim 12 further specify what the target is which further narrows the abstract idea identified above.
Nothing in dependent claims 3-12 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-13 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art: Examiner is unaware of any combination of available prior art which teaches or suggests all the limitations within the independent claims in a manner in which it is obvious to combine the references. Examiner noting that claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following are the closest prior art:
Moore et al. (US2025/0069029) teaches the limitations of inputting, analyzing, constructing, and outputting of the independent claims.
Luwang et al. (US2016/0048802) teaches the UI screen includes: a graph and information on a plurality of warehouses.
Liu et al. (US2024/0403809) teaches a graph with nodes and directed edges representing a logistics network and determining an optimal path between a sender and receiver.
Avidar et al. (US2017/0310595) teaches optimizing a weighted flow network to determine the best route as well as balancing a load in the network by distributing the plurality of route requests.
Zhu et al. (US2019/0378066) teaches load balancing in a fulfillment network. Zhu also teaches wherein the target is a transportation cost and wherein the target is a weighted sum of a transportation cost and an amount of packages to a warehouse with the highest workload.
Bhatia et al. (US2023/0068628) teaches transportation vessel capacity and constraints such as a maximum load limit of a transportation vessel and maximizing vessel utilization through orders.
Moton et al. (US2022/0391785) teaches determining a route to maximize fulfillment of the demand where routes and loaded items are jointly optimized to move the most amount of items.
Non-patent literature “Delivery pattern planning in retailing with transport and warehouse workload balancing” (published in 2022 https://ojs.srce.hr/index.php/crorr/article/view/21780 ) teaches minimizing an objective function that accounts for the warehouses, routes, number of deliveries between warehouse and store, upper and lower limit of the warehouse, etc.
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 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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628