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 3/4/2025, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The double patenting rejection is not withdrawn.
Please see MPEP 1308 for instructions regarding withdrawing patent US 11346681 B2.
The specification objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are not withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
It appears the applicant’s arguments about patent offices from other countries are irrelevant.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues the following on page 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
103
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
It is true that Yonezawa teaches the route starting from the distribution center to different destinations, and back to the distribution center again. However, the claims do not require the stopping location@D1 as the endpoint, and it is possible to map the endpoint to any stopping location.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of Patent Application No. US 11346681 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application describes a method for searching or comparing sites and places, receiving data and requests, and determining and computing descriptions of travel based on the sites, places, representatives, and locations. Patent Application No. US 11346681 B2 describes a method for searching or comparing sites and places, receiving data and requests, and determining and computing descriptions of travel based on the start/end sites, start/end places, representatives, and locations.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Please see MPEP 1308 for instructions regarding withdrawing the patent US 11346681 B2.
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 1-2 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “a description of travel” in line 13. It is unclear if “a description of travel” refers back to “a description of travel” in claim 1 line 10 or is another new unclaimed recitation of “a description of travel”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a description of travel” in line 13 to mean “the description of travel”.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “a description of travel” in line 19. It is unclear if “a description of travel” refers back to “a description of travel” in claim 1 line 10 or is another new unclaimed recitation of “a description of travel”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a description of travel” in line 19 to mean “the description of travel”.
Regarding claim 1, “the second partial description of travel” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the second partial description of travel” to mean “the at least one second partial description of travel”.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “a description of travel” in line 8. It is unclear if “a description of travel” refers back to “a description of travel” in claim 2 line 1 or is another new unclaimed recitation of “a description of travel”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a description of travel” in line 8 to mean “the description of travel”.
Regarding claim 2, “the part P” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the part P” to mean “the at least one part P”.
Regarding claim 2, “the part Q” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the part Q” to mean “the at least one part Q”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving a request, and determining descriptions of travel between sites, places, representatives, and locations.
The limitation of determining descriptions of travel as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “within a transportation system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the transportation system determining a description of travel between a site and a representative, or between a site and a place, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of determining a description for travel between these locations. For example, determining a description of travel in the context of these claim encompasses the user thinking about and determining the distance or time between these locations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites receiving data/requests and determining descriptions of travel between locations with a transportation system. The transportation system in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system performing generic computer functions of receiving, determining, and computing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 a transportation system amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements of a database to store descriptions of travel amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of a vehicle based on the method. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 20030078802 A1) in view of Nazarian (US 20180315018 A1) and Silverman (US 20200160264 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yonezawa discloses a method for searching or comparing at least one site using at least one description of travel within a transportation system between the at least one site and at least one place (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051 -site is mapped to homes -place is mapped to distribution center);
the method comprising: (a) receiving at least one representative , wherein each representative is a location included in the transportation system (Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0062-0064 -representative is mapped to stopping location of delivery vehicles);
(c) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051);
the method characterized by: (d) determining at least one partial description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051);
(e) computing the at least one description of travel that comprises a description of travel within the transportation system between an endpoint site included in the at least one site and an endpoint place included in the at least one place (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051);
the computing comprises: i. retrieving from the at least one partial description of travel at least one second partial description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051);
ii. determining a description of travel within the transportation system between the endpoint place and a location x included in the second partial description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051 -location x is mapped to vehicle stopping location for delivering to the endpoint site).
Yonezawa does not specifically state (b) receiving a request comprising the at least one place; and storing it in a database before the request is received.
However, Nazarian, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches (b) receiving a request comprising the at least one place (Paragraphs 0026-0029);
and storing it in a database before the request is received (Paragraphs 0029-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Yonezawa with receiving a request and storing a partial description in a database before the request is received of Nazarian with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a request allows the computer to start executing the traveling description determining process. The computer is able to retrieve geographical data from a server and store it in a local database to improve processing times. One would have been motivated to combine Yonezawa with Nazarian as this achieves a more efficient traveling computing system. As stated in Nazarian, “the central server 102 can periodically connect to the geographical information server 102 and get batches of geographical information data (via updates or downloading). This would require more storage, but would improve processing time of the central server since it would no longer need a live connection” (Paragraph 0031).
Yonezawa does not specifically state each first partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between a first site included in the at least one site and a first representative included in the at least one representative; each second partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between the endpoint site and a second representative included in the at least one representative; iii. determining a description of travel within the transportation system between the location x and the endpoint site.
However, Silverman, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches each first partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between a first site included in the at least one site and a first representative included in the at least one representative (Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0122-0126);
each second partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between the endpoint site and a second representative included in the at least one representative (Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0122-0126);
iii. determining a description of travel within the transportation system between the location x and the endpoint site (Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0122-0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Yonezawa with a description of travel between the first site and a first representative, and a description of travel between the endpoint site and a second representative of Silverman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when delivering packages, a delivery driver may need instructions to get from the parking lot to a building. One would have been motivated to combine Yonezawa with Silverman as this achieves reducing time, effort, and/or cost. As stated in Silverman, “the delivery site information 159A can identify numerous other predefined features which can be identified to the deliverer, and/or communicated in context of instructions, for purpose of enabling the deliverer to minimize time, effort and/or cost when completing a delivery at the delivery site. By way of example, the delivery site information 159A can specify a submap and/or navigation instructions, to enable the deliverer to traverse through a building or region to arrive at the delivery location 108” (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Yonezawa discloses a method for determining a description of travel within a transportation system from a source location to a target location (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051 -source location is mapped to distribution center -target location is mapped to homes to be delivered to);
the method comprising: (a) receiving at least one representative , wherein each representative is a location included in the transportation system (Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0062-0064);
(c) responding to the request with the description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051);
the method characterized by: (d) determining at least one partial description of travel (Paragraphs 0014, 0047-0051);
(e) computing the description of travel using steps comprising (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051);
i. determining at least one part P and at least one part Q , wherein the part P and the part Q are included in the transportation system (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051 -part P is mapped to distribution center -part Q is mapped to homes to be delivered to);
B. the part P is the source location , and the part Q is retrieved from the at least one partial description of travel wherein the endpoint location is the target location (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051);
ii. determining a description of travel within the transportation system from a location xP included in the part P to a location xQ included in the part Q (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051 -xP is mapped to first stopping location for delivery vehicle -xQ is mapped to last stopping location for delivery vehicle);
iii. determining a description of travel within the transportation system from the source location to the location xP (Paragraphs 0014, 0046-0051).
Yonezawa does not specifically state (b) receiving a request comprising the source location and the target location; storing it in a database before the request is received.
However, Nazarian, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches (b) receiving a request comprising the source location and the target location (Paragraphs 0026-0029);
storing it in a database before the request is received (Paragraphs 0029-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Yonezawa with receiving a request and storing a partial description in a database before the request is received of Nazarian with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a request allows the computer to start executing the traveling description determining process. The computer is able to retrieve geographical data from a server and store it in a local database to improve processing times. One would have been motivated to combine Yonezawa with Nazarian as this achieves a more efficient traveling computing system. As stated in Nazarian, “the central server 102 can periodically connect to the geographical information server 102 and get batches of geographical information data (via updates or downloading). This would require more storage, but would improve processing time of the central server since it would no longer need a live connection” (Paragraph 0031).
Yonezawa does not specifically state each first partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between an endpoint location included in the transportation system and a first representative included in the at least one representative; iv. determining a description of travel within the transportation system from the location xQ to the target location.
However, Silverman, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches each first partial description of travel comprises a part of a description of travel within the transportation system between an endpoint location included in the transportation system and a first representative included in the at least one representative (Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0122-0126 -endpoint location is mapped to home -first representative is mapped to parking location of delivery vehicle);
iv. determining a description of travel within the transportation system from the location xQ to the target location (Paragraphs 0109-0110, 0122-0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Yonezawa with a description of travel between the endpoint site and a first representative, and a description of travel between the location xQ and the target location of Silverman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when delivering packages, a delivery driver may need instructions to get from the parking lot to a building. One would have been motivated to combine Yonezawa with Silverman as this achieves reducing time, effort, and/or cost. As stated in Silverman, “the delivery site information 159A can identify numerous other predefined features which can be identified to the deliverer, and/or communicated in context of instructions, for purpose of enabling the deliverer to minimize time, effort and/or cost when completing a delivery at the delivery site. By way of example, the delivery site information 159A can specify a submap and/or navigation instructions, to enable the deliverer to traverse through a building or region to arrive at the delivery location 108” (Paragraph 0049).
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 extension fee 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 Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669