DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but does not provide any analysis as to support the statement see Applicant’s remarks pg. 11. Applicant merely restates the Examiner’s analysis. Nonetheless, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s statement. The claims remain directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an improvement to a technology. The Examiner disagrees. A shortage of drivers to perform all of the work, is not a technological problem. It is a business problem.
Despite Applicant’s assertions, “Therefore, even if Applicant's independent claims 1, 10, and 11 do include an abstract idea (a point that Applicant does not concede), Applicant's claims 1, 10, and 11, when considered as a whole, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because claims 1, 10, and 11 recite elements that improve the efficiency of vehicle travel by determining a transportation plan for a vehicle to satisfy a requirement of achieving a balance between reducing the number of required drivers and enhancing the quality of work for the drivers. More specifically, Applicant's claims include determining a transportation plan for a vehicle based on transportation conditions of the transportation plan, past transportation conditions, and weights of important achievement evaluation indicators of actual transportation records. The apparatus outputs the transportation plan for the vehicle, including a dispatch schedule to be followed by the vehicle for traversing a dispatch route. Consequently, by providing the determined transportation plan for the vehicle, with an included dispatch schedule to be followed by the vehicle for traversing a dispatch route”. Again, these are non-technical problems, solved by business solutions.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The Examiner disagrees. The additional elements Applicant refers to i.e., a transportation planning portion that generates a transportation plan, are part of the abstract idea itself and do not remedy the deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
a transportation planning portion that formulates a transportation plan for a vehicle based on transportation conditions of the transportation plan, which is a formulation target, past transportation conditions, and weights of the important achievement evaluation indicators of actual transportation records;
an indicator estimation portion that estimates weights of the important achievement evaluation indicators relative to the past transportation conditions by comparing values of the important achievement evaluation indicators calculated based on the transportation plan formulated by the transportation planning portion with values of the important achievement evaluation indicators of past actual transportation records calculated from the past actual transportation records; and
an indicator setting portion that identifies, from among a plurality of the past transportation conditions, past transportation conditions with the highest similarity to the transportation conditions of the transportation plan, which is the formulation target, and sets the weights of the important achievement evaluation indicators of the actual transportation records corresponding to the identified past transportation conditions.
displays the transportation plan for the vehicle, the displayed transportation plan including a dispatch schedule to be followed by the vehicle for traversing a dispatch route.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “non-transitory storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (non-transitory computer readable recording medium, an output apparatus including a display)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights