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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 06/23/2025.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1 and 11-13 the three prong test to determine if 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) can be invoked was applied.
Claim 1 recites the limitations (1.) “a delivery plan determination device that determines a delivery plan for delivering packages…”, (2.) “an objective function acquisition unit configured to acquire an objective function…”, and (3.) “a delivery plan determination unit configured to determine the delivery plan…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery plan determination device” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination device” is subsequently modified by the functional language “that determines a delivery plan for delivering packages…”. The limitation “a delivery plan determination device that determines a delivery plan for delivering packages…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0051] as a “processor”, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0125]-¶ [0138].
The term “objective function acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “objective function acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to acquire an objective function”. The limitation “an objective function acquisition unit configured to acquire an objective function…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0055] as a “processor”.
The term “delivery plan determination unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to determine the delivery plan…”. The limitation “a delivery plan determination unit configured to determine the delivery plan…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0055] as a “processor”, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification at ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0125]-¶ [0138].
Claim 11 recites the limitations (1.) “the delivery plan determination unit optimizes the objective function…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery plan determination unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “optimizes the objective function…”. The limitation “the delivery plan determination unit optimizes the objective function” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0055] as a “processor”, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification at ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0125]-¶ [0138].
Claim 12 recites the limitations (1.) “acquiring, by a delivery plan determination device, an objective function…”, (2.) “determining, by the delivery plan determination device, the delivery plan…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “delivery plan determination device” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination device” is subsequently modified by the functional language “acquiring…an objective function”. The limitation “acquiring, by a delivery plan determination device, an objective function…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0051] as a “processor”.
The term “delivery plan determination device” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination device” is subsequently modified by the functional language “determining…the delivery plan”. The limitation “determining, by the delivery plan determination device, the delivery plan…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0051] as a “processor”, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0125]-¶ [0138].
Claim 13 recites the limitations (1.) “an objective function acquisition unit configured to acquire an objective function…”, (2.) “a delivery plan determination unit configured to determine the delivery plan…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “objective function acquisition unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “objective function acquisition unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to acquire an objective function”. The limitation “an objective function acquisition unit configured to acquire an objective function…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0055] as a “processor”.
The term “delivery plan determination unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “delivery plan determination unit” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to determine the delivery plan…”. The limitation “a delivery plan determination unit configured to determine the delivery plan…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The corresponding computer structure is recited in specification ¶ [0055] as a “processor”, and the corresponding algorithm is recited in specification at ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0125]-¶ [0138].
Therefore, the limitations discussed above are considered to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and should be treated accordingly. Furthermore, no other terms in claims exist that would impart structure to the aforementioned generic placeholder terms to remove these limitations from 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 12-13 similarly recite “sixth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point before a departure time of the vehicle from the departure point”. Although the claims recite “a plurality of vehicles” and “each vehicle”, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the vehicle”. Accordingly, claims 1 and 12-13, and claims 2-11 by virtue of dependence, are rendered indefinite for reciting a limitation for which there is a lack of antecedent basis. For the sake of compact prosecution, this limitation will be considered as reciting “sixth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point before a departure time of each vehicle from the departure point”.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 13, as currently drafted, is directed to software per se. While the “computer program” is recited as “causing a computer to function as a delivery plan determination device”, the claim does not explicitly recite language that ties said “computer program” to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Thus, claim13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and for being directed to software per se. See MPEP 2106.03(I). For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program for causing a computer to function as a delivery plan determination device that determines…” in accordance with the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0147].
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-11 are directed to a machine (“device”), claim 12 is directed to a process (“method”), and claim 13 is directed towards a manufacture (“non-transitory computer readable medium”). Thus, claims 1-13 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-13, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] determines a delivery plan for delivering packages using a plurality of vehicles from a departure point to a return point via a package delivery point, comprising:
[…] acquire an objective function including a first function, a second function, a third function, a fourth function, a fifth function, a sixth function, a seventh function, an eighth function, and a ninth function described below; and
[…] determine the delivery plan by optimizing the objective function […];
first function: a function indicating a required package delivery time;
second function: a function indicating the number of delivery points;
third function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from traveling, in a time shorter than a required travel time, between points to which each vehicle may travel;
fourth function: a penalty function that, in a case where the number of visits of each vehicle to each delivery point is one or less and a planned time of the delivery plan is divided into a plurality of time slots, prohibits a plurality of vehicle from visiting each delivery point in a plurality of time slots;
fifth function: a penalty function that prohibits the plurality of vehicles from visiting each delivery point in each time slot;
sixth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point before a departure time of the vehicle from the departure point;
seventh function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point after a return time to the return point;
eighth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point a plurality of time;
ninth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the return point a plurality of times.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-11, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards determining a delivery plan by optimizing an objective function including a plurality of particular functions – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of planning/coordinating business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0008]- ¶ [0009]. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards optimizing an objective function, wherein the objective function includes a plurality of particular functions, recite concepts of mathematical calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards acquiring an objective function including the plurality of functions and determining a delivery plan by optimizing the objective function recite concepts of collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “delivery plan determination device”, “an objective function acquisition unit” for collecting information, “a delivery plan determination unit”, and the use of an “annealing type quantum computer or an Ising machine” to generally analyze information (i.e., to optimize an objective function). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 12, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
acquiring […] an objective function including a first function, a second function, a third function, a fourth function, a fifth function, a sixth function, a seventh function, an eighth function, and a ninth function described below; and
determining […] the delivery plan by optimizing the objective function […];
first function: a function indicating a required package delivery time;
second function: a function indicating the number of delivery points;
third function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from traveling, in a time shorter than a required travel time, between points to which each vehicle may travel;
fourth function: a penalty function that, in a case where the number of visits of each vehicle to each delivery point is one or less and a planned time of the delivery plan is divided into a plurality of time slots, prohibits a plurality of vehicle from visiting each delivery point in a plurality of time slots;
fifth function: a penalty function that prohibits the plurality of vehicles from visiting each delivery point in each time slot;
sixth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point before a departure time of the vehicle from the departure point;
seventh function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point after a return time to the return point;
eighth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point a plurality of time;
ninth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the return point a plurality of times.
Therefore, claim 12 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 12 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards determining a delivery plan by optimizing an objective function including a plurality of particular functions – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of planning/coordinating business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0008]- ¶ [0009]. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards optimizing an objective function, wherein the objective function includes a plurality of particular functions, recite concepts of mathematical calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards acquiring an objective function including the plurality of functions and determining a delivery plan by optimizing the objective function recite concepts of collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include “delivery plan determination device” for collecting and determining information, and the use of an “annealing type quantum computer or an Ising machine” to generally analyze information (i.e., to optimize an objective function). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 13, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] determines a delivery plan for delivering packages using a plurality of vehicles from a departure point to a return point via a package delivery point […];
[…] acquire an objective function including a first function, a second function, a third function, a fourth function, a fifth function, a sixth function, a seventh function, an eighth function, and a ninth function described below; and
[…] determine the delivery plan by optimizing the objective function […];
first function: a function indicating a required package delivery time;
second function: a function indicating the number of delivery points;
third function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from traveling, in a time shorter than a required travel time, between points to which each vehicle may travel;
fourth function: a penalty function that, in a case where the number of visits of each vehicle to each delivery point is one or less and a planned time of the delivery plan is divided into a plurality of time slots, prohibits a plurality of vehicle from visiting each delivery point in a plurality of time slots;
fifth function: a penalty function that prohibits the plurality of vehicles from visiting each delivery point in each time slot;
sixth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point before a departure time of the vehicle from the departure point;
seventh function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point, the delivery point, and the return point after a return time to the return point;
eighth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the departure point a plurality of time;
ninth function: a penalty function that prohibits each vehicle from visiting the return point a plurality of times.
Therefore, claim 13 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 13 identified above, as a whole, are directed towards determining a delivery plan by optimizing an objective function including a plurality of particular functions – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of planning/coordinating business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0008]- ¶ [0009]. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards optimizing an objective function, wherein the objective function includes a plurality of particular functions, recite concepts of mathematical calculations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards acquiring an objective function including the plurality of functions and determining a delivery plan by optimizing the objective function recite concepts of collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program for causing a computer to function as a delivery plan determination device”, “an objective function acquisition unit” for collecting information, “a delivery plan determination unit”, and the use of an “annealing type quantum computer or an Ising machine” to generally analyze information (i.e., to optimize an objective function). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further describes the objective function as being represented by a sum of functions obtained by multiplying the first function, the second function, the third function, the fourth function, the fifth function, the sixth function, the seventh function, the eighth function, and the ninth function by predetermined weight coefficients, respectively. Thus, the limitations of claim 2 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 further represents the third function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 3 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 4 further represents the fourth function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 4 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further represents the fifth function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 5 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 further represents the sixth function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 6 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 further represents the seventh function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 7 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 8 further represents the eighth function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 8 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 9 further represents the ninth function with a corresponding mathematical formula. Thus, the limitations of claim 9 further describe the abstract idea of mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical formulas and relationships. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 10 further describes the delivery point as being associated with a package and a designated delivery time of the package. Thus, the limitations of claim 10 further describe the abstract ideas of commercial interactions and mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 11 further describes the objective function as including a decision variable that indicates, with two values, whether or not each vehicle visits each delivery point in each time slot, and optimizing the objective function after determining, based on a designated delivery time of a package, the value of a decision variable other than the designated delivery time of the package at the delivery point to a value corresponding to no visit. Thus, the limitations of claim 11 further describe the abstract ideas of commercial interactions, mathematical calculations, and mental processes. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1 and 12-13 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-11 by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claim 1 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1 and 12-13 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1 and 12-13. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Doi et al. JP2022182286A;
Doi et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0303590A1;
Ito JP2021144351A;
Handa et al. U.S. Publication No. 20210239481A1;
Ide et al. JP6692022B2;
Doi (JP2022182286A) discloses a route derivation system comprising a quantum computer and an Ising machine used to determine an optimal travel route for each of a plurality of delivery vehicles traveling to a plurality of visiting locations. The system may derive a plurality of stores to be visited from the time of departure from a center to the time of return to the center and the order of visits to each store as a provisional route of each delivery vehicle. The system may further generate the routes with consideration to a plurality of constraints, such as restrictions on a specified delivery time, maximum loading capacity of delivery vehicles, maximum number of nodes that one delivery vehicle can visit, and maximum time that one delivery vehicle can travel. Doi, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 12-13. In particular, Doi does not teach the specific series of acquired penalty functions described in the independent claims as the third-ninth functions.
Doi (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0303590A1) discloses a system including a delivery plan generator configured to determine an optimal delivery plan/route for a plurality of vehicles. The delivery plan generator applies various algorithms in generating the delivery plan and utilizes a quantum computer capable of solving the combination optimization problem. The delivery plan generator considers various constraints in order to find an optimal solution that satisfies the constraints, including constraints for loading times, departure times, available delivery time frames, route time subtotal, number of vehicles, load volumes, etc. Doi, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 12-13. In particular, Doi does not teach the specific series of acquired penalty functions described in the independent claims as the third-ninth functions.
Ito discloses a system comprising an Ising machine that is configured to generate sets of routes that satisfy a plurality of constraints included in a delivery planning problem. The system utilizes cost functions and constraint equations as the route selection optimization problem. Given data for delivery planning problems include: the number of nodes, the travel time to move between nodes by vehicle, the amount of luggage that needs to be transported from the depot to each node (or from each node to the depot), the time zone when the vehicle can visit each node, each vehicle maximum load capacity, cost associated with operating each vehicle for a certain period of time. Ito, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 12-13. In particular, Ito does not teach the specific series of acquired penalty functions described in the independent claims as the third-ninth functions.
Handa discloses a combinatorial optimization problem for acquiring a plurality of routes to be used by a traveling entity to visit a plurality of spot nodes having a depot node as a starting point and end point of each of the routes is solved by a computer. “N” objective functions may be generated for “N” combinations, a solution search is executed for each of the objective functions, and the best solution of the solutions acquired with respect to the “N” objective functions is adopted as a final solution. Handa, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 12-13. In particular, Handa does not teach the specific series of acquired penalty functions described in the claims as the third-ninth functions.
Ide discloses a delivery planning system and method for generating a delivery plan for a delivery problem. The system and method involve dividing a large-scale delivery problem into smaller-scale delivery problems and calculating a delivery plan in units of small delivery problems. A delivery plan generation unit solves the delivery problem in which different objective functions and constraints are set according to sections created by a time division unit in order to generate the delivery plan. Ide, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 12-13. In particular, Ide does not teach the specific series of acquired penalty functions described in the claims as the third-ninth functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights