Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 9 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 12/03/2025. Claims 1, 4, & 7 were amended in a reply filed 01/16/2026. Claims 1 – 9 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
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
The previous claim objections have been rendered moot by the amended claims filed 01/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pg. 12 & pp. 14 – 15, that “claimed subject matter integrates judicial exception into practical application in terms of improvement in functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., consuming less computation resources in the process of finding or identifying both optimal route planning and optimal vehicle capacity utilization.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, that the claims integrate the concept into a practical application by providing an improvement in functionality of a computer. In particular, the additional elements, as outlined in the below 101 rejection, are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment of quantum computing (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Examiner additionally submits that “consuming less computation resources” while using a computing device to implement an abstract idea does not amount to an improvement in the way a computing device functions. In other words, reducing the computational demand of a computer does not change the way it functions; rather, the computer simply processes less information or performs fewer tasks, or tasks at a decreased rate. However, the tasks the computer performs is nonetheless being used as a tool to optimize delivery vehicle routing, which is a judicial exception as explained below.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 12 – 13, that “the claimed subject matter integrates judicial exception into practical application in terms of implementing a judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. (Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (See MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I)). Additional claim elements associated with a quantum computer are a mere instruction for the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a computing device (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment of quantum computing (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the implementation of the recited judicial exception using a quantum computing device does not provide integration of the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 15, that “the integration into practical application requirement is achieved in terms of applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) i.e., forming a closed-loop system with effective resource utilization of transport vehicles. The method and system disclosed herein provides both optimal route planning and optimal vehicle capacity utilization, with heterogeneous commodities, along with the separation of incompatible commodities in different vehicles (refer paragraph [0152]) (Emphasis added).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully notes that, while preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As outlined above and below, the claims, after performing the two-part framework of Alice Corp., the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, applicant’s arguments on the basis of preemption are found unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 16, that “the claimed subject achieves significantly more in terms of utilization of less computational resources to identify optimal route with optimal capacity utilization for each vehicle among the assigned set of vehicles within each cluster by solving the optimization model under a plurality of constraints. As stated in paragraph [0151] of Applicant's published application, "FIG. 7A indicates that the system 102 used less number of vehicles than the current existing approach.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that using “less computational resources” [SIC] does not amount to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or any other technology as outlined above. Furthermore, as stated by the Court in Enfish, “the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. As noted infra, in Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computer-related § 101 cases we have issued in light of those Supreme Court decisions, it was clear that the claims were of the latter type—requiring that the analysis proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which asks if nevertheless there is some inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357–59. In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is not to an improvement to computer functionality itself, but “on economic or other tasks (i.e., using fewer vehicles) for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” The instant claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity as well as a mathematical concept, which invokes generic computer components as a mere tool for implementation, rather to an improvement thereof. Therefore, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functionality of a computing device or other technology.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 18 – 19, that, similar to XY, LLC V. Trans Ova Genetics, 968 F.3d 1323, 1330-32 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the instant “claimed subject matter includes quantum processing units that are configured to find an optimal route with optimal capacity utilization upon creation of the optimization model for each cluster” and “the optimal route is identified with less use of computational resources.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claims bear any similarity to the claims in XY, LLC V. Trans Ova Genetic other than both claims including limitations involving mathematical calculations. However, this is the end of any purported similarity in the fact patterns of the instant claims and the claims in XY, LLC V. Trans Ova Genetic ends. In particular, the claims in XY, LLC V. Trans Ova Genetic were directed to an improved method of operating a flow cytometry apparatus using mathematics in order to classify and sort particles into at least two populations in real time. In contrast, the instant claims incorporate mathematical calculations in order to perform a delivery vehicle routing optimizing procedure. Indeed, this process encompasses the implementation of the steps during “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions),” and therefore falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, as well as the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Rather than using mathematical calculations to operate a physical flow cytometer to sort particles, the instant claims merely output an optimal route to perform deliveries during a commercial interaction. The claims are thus directed to an improvement to the recited judicial exception, rather than to the functionality of a computing device or other technology. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without additional elements that would amount to significantly more.
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 – 9 are rejected under 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation “very low electromagnetic and thermal noise” in claims 1, 4, & 7 is indefinite. It is unclear as to what would constitute electromagnetic and thermal noise being “very low,” as “very low” is a relative term, and the metes and bounds of Applicant’s instant invention are unclearly claimed. For the purpose of examination, “very low electromagnetic and thermal noise” will be interpreted as any possible degree of electromagnetic and thermal noise, or equivalents thereof.
In addition, claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, & 8 – 9 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies while failing to remedy them.
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 – 9 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 – 3 are directed to a process (i.e., a method). Claims 4 – 6 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 7 – 9 are directed to a product. Therefore, claims 1 – 9 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 4, & 7 substantially recite: “splitting… each pickup location among a plurality of pickup locations into a plurality of nodes, wherein each pickup location comprises commodities with a combination of compatible commodities and incompatible commodities to be picked and transported to a collection center, and wherein the splitting is determined based on (i) number of the incompatible commodities at the pickup location, (ii) an amount of commodity comprising a weight amount and a volume amount at each location, and (iii) a median capacity in terms of a weight capacity and a volume capacity of a plurality of vehicles registered for transport to the collection center; clustering… the plurality of nodes into a plurality of clusters based on geological distance among the nodes, wherein the clustering is performed if a number of the plurality of nodes exceed a predefined node count, and wherein number of clusters is restricted by ratio of the number of the plurality of nodes to the predefined node count, and maximum nodes in a cluster are limited by the predefined node count; assigning… a set of vehicles from among the plurality of vehicles to each cluster using an iterative process until demand of the amount of each of the plurality of clusters is equal to or less than a capacity of one or more vehicles assigned to each cluster, the iterative process is applied on (i) the plurality of vehicles arranged in descending order of the capacity comprising the weight capacity and the volume capacity, (ii) the plurality of nodes of each of the plurality of clusters arranged in descending order of the amount of the one or more commodities at each node among the plurality of nodes a market demand of the one or more commodities available at each of node, and (iv) a difference between the capacity of the vehicle and amount of the one or more commodities at each of the set of nodes in each cluster; creating… an optimization model defined by an object value (O) for each cluster based on a plurality of input parameters comprising a total number of nodes, a total number of the set of vehicles assigned to a cluster, distance among the set of nodes within the cluster, penalty value for clubbing a pair of commodities in a single vehicle, the weight amount demand of a node and the volume amount demand of a node for the commodity to be picked up from the node, the weight capacity and the volume capacity of the vehicle, and total time steps allotted to complete the pickup of the plurality of commodities, wherein the object value is defined by summation of a plurality of decision variables (α, β, δ, γ, ή, ξ); and upon creation of the optimization model for each cluster… finding an optimal route with optimal capacity utilization for each vehicle among the assigned set of vehicles within each cluster by solving the optimization model under a plurality of constraints to minimize the object value… wherein the optimal route specifies number of nodes to be visited and associated time steps for each vehicle for logistics planning… wherein the optimal route is identified with optimal capacity utilization for each vehicle among the assigned set of vehicles within each cluster by solving the optimization model under a plurality of constraints” (exemplary claim 1).
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass optimizing delivery vehicle routing. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).”
Additionally, the functionality of “creating… an optimization model defined by an object value (O) for each cluster based on a plurality of input parameters comprising a total number of nodes, a total number of the set of vehicles assigned to a cluster, distance among the set of nodes within the cluster, penalty value for clubbing a pair of commodities in a single vehicle, the weight amount demand of a node and the volume amount demand of a node for the commodity to be picked up from the node, the weight capacity and the volume capacity of the vehicle, and total time steps allotted to complete the pickup of the plurality of commodities, wherein the object value is defined by summation of a plurality of decision variables (α, β, δ, γ, ή, ξ)… solving the optimization model under a plurality of constraints to minimize the object value,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical calculation (including mathematical relationships, formulas, or equations). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 4, & 7, as a whole, amount to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 recites the additional computer-related elements of “processor,” “by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “by the one or more hardware processors,” “a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system are configured for,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by OPUs of the quantum computing system,” “wherein the quantum computing system includes a control system, a signal delivery system, the plurality of QPUs and a quantum memory, wherein the quantum computing system operates using gate-based models for quantum computing, and Qubits are initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates are applied to transform the Qubits and extract measurements representing an output of the quantum computation,” “wherein the plurality of QPUs, and the quantum memory is maintained in a controlled cryogenic environment by a shielding equipment and components in the QPUs operate in a cryogenic temperature regime and are subject to very low electromagnetic and thermal noise, wherein the quantum memory receives control signals from the control system and delivers the control signals to the QPUs,” “wherein the quantum memory performs preprocessing, signal conditioning, or other operations to the control signals before delivering them to the QPUs, the quantum memory includes connectors or other hardware elements that transfer signals between the QPUs and the control system,” and “incur limited use of computational resources.”
Claim 4 recites the additional computer-related elements of “a classical computing system a memory storing instructions,” “one or more Input/Output (I/O) interfaces,” “one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces,” “a quantum computing system coupled to the classical computing system comprising Quantum Processing Units (QPUs),” “wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions,” “wherein the QPUs, executing a Quantum hybrid solver is configured to,” “wherein the quantum computing system includes a control system, a signal delivery system, the plurality of QPUs and a quantum memory, wherein the quantum computing system operates using gate-based models for quantum computing, and Qubits are initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates are applied to transform the Qubits and extract measurements representing an output of the quantum computation,” “wherein the plurality of QPUs, and the quantum memory is maintained in a controlled cryogenic environment by a shielding equipment and components in the QPUs operate in a cryogenic temperature regime and are subject to very low electromagnetic and thermal noise, wherein the quantum memory receives control signals from the control system and delivers the control signals to the QPUs,” “wherein the quantum memory performs preprocessing, signal conditioning, or other operations to the control signals before delivering them to the QPUs, the quantum memory includes connectors or other hardware elements that transfer signals between the QPUs and the control system,” and “incur limited use of computational resources.”
Claim 7 recites the additional computer-related elements of “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system are configured for,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by OPUs of the quantum computing system,” “wherein the quantum computing system includes a control system, a signal delivery system, the plurality of QPUs and a quantum memory, wherein the quantum computing system operates using gate-based models for quantum computing, and Qubits are initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates are applied to transform the Qubits and extract measurements representing an output of the quantum computation,” “wherein the plurality of QPUs, and the quantum memory is maintained in a controlled cryogenic environment by a shielding equipment and components in the QPUs operate in a cryogenic temperature regime and are subject to very low electromagnetic and thermal noise, wherein the quantum memory receives control signals from the control system and delivers the control signals to the QPUs,” “wherein the quantum memory performs preprocessing, signal conditioning, or other operations to the control signals before delivering them to the QPUs, the quantum memory includes connectors or other hardware elements that transfer signals between the QPUs and the control system,” and “incur limited use of computational resources.”
The additional elements of “processor,” “by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “by the one or more hardware processors,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system,” “a classical computing system a memory storing instructions,” “one or more Input/Output (I/O) interfaces,” “one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces,” “a quantum computing system coupled to the classical computing system comprising Quantum Processing Units (QPUs),” “wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions,” “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system are configured for,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by OPUs of the quantum computing system,” “wherein the quantum computing system includes a control system, a signal delivery system, the plurality of QPUs and a quantum memory, wherein the quantum computing system operates using gate-based models for quantum computing, and Qubits are initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates are applied to transform the Qubits and extract measurements representing an output of the quantum computation,” “wherein the plurality of QPUs, and the quantum memory is maintained in a controlled cryogenic environment by a shielding equipment and components in the QPUs operate in a cryogenic temperature regime and are subject to very low electromagnetic and thermal noise, wherein the quantum memory receives control signals from the control system and delivers the control signals to the QPUs,” “wherein the quantum memory performs preprocessing, signal conditioning, or other operations to the control signals before delivering them to the QPUs, the quantum memory includes connectors or other hardware elements that transfer signals between the QPUs and the control system,” and “incur limited use of computational resources” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment of quantum computing (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “processor,” “by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “by the one or more hardware processors,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system,” “a classical computing system a memory storing instructions,” “one or more Input/Output (I/O) interfaces,” “one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces,” “a quantum computing system coupled to the classical computing system comprising Quantum Processing Units (QPUs),” “wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions,” “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors of a classical computing system,” “a Quantum Processing Units (QPUs) of a quantum computing system are configured for,” “using a Quantum hybrid solver executed by OPUs of the quantum computing system,” “wherein the quantum computing system includes a control system, a signal delivery system, the plurality of QPUs and a quantum memory, wherein the quantum computing system operates using gate-based models for quantum computing, and Qubits are initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates are applied to transform the Qubits and extract measurements representing an output of the quantum computation,” “wherein the plurality of QPUs, and the quantum memory is maintained in a controlled cryogenic environment by a shielding equipment and components in the QPUs operate in a cryogenic temperature regime and are subject to very low electromagnetic and thermal noise, wherein the quantum memory receives control signals from the control system and delivers the control signals to the QPUs,” “wherein the quantum memory performs preprocessing, signal conditioning, or other operations to the control signals before delivering them to the QPUs, the quantum memory includes connectors or other hardware elements that transfer signals between the QPUs and the control system,” and “incur limited use of computational resources” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, & 8 – 9 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights