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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 09/24/2025
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 7, 10-11, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-13 of Applicant’s Response filed 09/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims do not recite a mental process since a human could not perform the recited generate step. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the breadth of this step. Applicant argues that the three dimensional interaction technique necessarily entails computational rendering of spatial models, integration of data streams, and display for real time engagement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that nothing in the specification indicates that such limitations are necessarily required by the recitation of a 3D technique (rather, the specification merely recites a bare recitation of the claimed language, and nothing more.) Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the mere addition of altitude data to received latitude and longitude data in a delivery platform. As such, the limitation still recites mental processes, and Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11, that the incorporation of the 3D interaction technique materially improves the functioning of a computer by enabling a spatially rendered environment where multiple transfer apparatuses can dynamically proffer and resolve object transfer requests, and further allows for efficient and reliable coordination of transport apparatuses competing for requests in real time. Examiner respectfully notes that the addition of the 3D technique further recites one or more abstract ideas, as outlined below. As such, the limitation is not an “additional element” which is analyzed to determine whether it directs the abstract idea to a practical application thereof. Furthermore, the alleged improvement pointed to by Applicant amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea itself (enabling such an environment and such coordination is an improvement to a business process, rather than to the functioning of the computer itself). MPEP2016.05(a)(II) specifically points out that an improvement to the abstract idea itself does not amount to an improvement to technology. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on page 12, that the addition of the 3D interaction technique directs the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the addition of the 3D technique further recites one or more abstract ideas, as outlined below. As such, the limitation is not an “additional element” which is analyzed to determine whether it directs the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receive a plurality of object transfer requests, wherein the plurality of object transfer requests comprises a plurality of object identities and a plurality of object destinations; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a plurality of object transfer requests in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
generate, using the plurality of object transfer requests, a transfer apparatus interaction platform for a plurality of transfer apparatuses to proffer at least an object transfer request, wherein the transfer apparatus interaction platform comprises at least a 3D interaction technique; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a platform for proffering object transfer requests using a three dimensional interaction technique; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
determine a plurality of transfer apparatus interaction data having a plurality of proffers of object transfer requests, wherein determining further comprises determining, for each transfer apparatus of the plurality of transfer apparatuses: a transfer apparatus proffer of an object transfer request; and a proposed window of time for object transfer, (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine transfer apparatus interaction data in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
wherein determining the proposed window of time for object transfer comprises: receiving a first position for the transfer apparatus, an originator location from the plurality of object identities, and an object destination from the plurality of object destinations; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive these pieces of information in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
calculating a transfer path as a function of the first position, the originator location, and the object destination; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a transfer path; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
and determining the proposed window of time as a function of the transfer path; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a proposed time window as a function of a transfer path; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
select a proffer from the plurality of proffers from the plurality of transfer apparatuses, wherein selecting comprises: determining a compatibility metric based on the proposed window of time for each transfer apparatus of the plurality of transfer apparatuses; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a proffer and determine a compatibility metric; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
and selecting a proffer as a function of the compatibility metric of the transfer apparatus corresponding to the proffer; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a proffer based on a compatibility metric; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
and provide the transfer apparatus corresponding to the selected proffer the object transfer request. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide an object request to a transfer apparatus; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system for initiating object transfer, the system comprising: a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . by a computing device. . . (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
wherein determining the proposed window of time further comprises determining the proposed window of time as a function of the transfer path and pending object transfer requests.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a window of time as a function of a transfer path and pending requests; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 3 and 13:
wherein determining the object transfer compatibility metric further comprises: training a machine learning algorithm as a function of training data and the distance ability parameter, wherein the training data correlates the distance ability parameter to the transfer apparatus;
determining, using the trained machine learning model, the compatibility metric as a function of the machine learning algorithm and the distance ability parameter.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could train a machine learning algorithm and use it to determine a compatibility metric; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers; alternatively still, this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any formula or mathematical operation for training the algorithm and using it to determine the metric.
Claims 4 and 14:
wherein generating the transfer apparatus interaction platform further comprises: determining a time frame for the plurality of transfer apparatuses to provide the plurality of proffers;
and providing to the plurality of transfer apparatuses at least an unfinished object transfer request.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a time frame for a plurality of transfer apparatuses and provide transfer requests to them; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 5 and 15:
wherein determining transfer apparatus interaction data via the transfer apparatus interaction platform further comprises generating a threshold value of time for accepting the proffer of the object transfer request from the plurality of transfer apparatuses.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate threshold value of time for accepting a proffer; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 6 and 16:
wherein the transfer apparatus interaction data is displayed to the plurality of transfer apparatuses via the transfer apparatus interaction platform.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display information to a user through a platform; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 7 and 17:
wherein determining the object transfer compatibility metric further comprises: receiving the at least a distance ability parameter associated with the transfer apparatus;
calculating a likelihood the transfer apparatus with a corresponding distance ability parameter will perform the object transfer before a maximal time for the object transfer, wherein the maximal time represents an expected object transfer time;
and determining the compatibility metric as a function of the distance ability parameter and the likelihood.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a distance ability parameter, calculate a likelihood, and determine a compatibility metric as a function of the two; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 8 and 18:
wherein selecting the transfer apparatus interaction data further comprises generating a pairwise operation instruction for selecting the proffer as a function of the plurality of compatibility metrics.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a pairwise operation instruction for selecting the proffer in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 9 and 19:
wherein providing the object transfer request further comprises selecting the transfer apparatus corresponding to the selected proffer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select an apparatus corresponding to a proffer; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
Claims 10 and 20:
wherein providing the object transfer request further comprises: providing the object transfer identity and the object transfer destination to the selected transfer apparatus;
and removing the object transfer request from a plurality of unfinished object transfer requests.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide this information to an apparatus and remove a request from a list of unfinished requests; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipment services for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190164126; hereinafter "Chopra") in view of Tazume, Toshiaki (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220101233; hereinafter "Tazume").
As per claim 1, Chopra teaches:
A system for initiating object transfer, the system comprising: a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to:
Chopra teaches a system and method for optimizing assignments for deliveries. (Chopra: abstract) Chopra further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computing device comprising a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Chopra: paragraphs [0030, 58], Fig. 3)
receive a plurality of object transfer requests, wherein the plurality of object transfer requests comprises a plurality of object identities and a plurality of object destinations;
Chopra teaches that the system may receive item order requests including origins and destinations. (Chopra: paragraph [0041, 112, 117], Fig. 7)
With respect to the following limitation:
generate, using the plurality of object transfer requests, a transfer apparatus interaction platform for a plurality of transfer apparatuses to proffer at least an object transfer request, wherein the transfer apparatus interaction platform comprises at least a 3D interaction technique;
Chopra teaches that the system may receive item order requests including origins and destinations. (Chopra: paragraph [0041, 48, 112, 117], Fig. 7) Chopra further teaches the generation and provision of a delivery service platform. (Chopra: paragraphs [0038, 42]) Chopra, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a three dimensional interaction technique.
Tazume, however, teaches that latitude, longitude, and altitude information of a prospective deliverer, pickup location, interim node locations, and drop-off locations may be received in calculating routing of delivery drivers to transfer objects from one location to another based on vehicle performance characteristics. (Tazume: paragraphs [0084-90, 101, 155]) Tazume teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Chopra for the benefit of enabling a required time required for a vehicle to transport a product to a specified location specified by a user or an arrival time at which a product, transported by a vehicle, arrives at the specified location to be identified with high precision. (Tazume: paragraph [0009]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tazume with the teachings of Chopra to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Chopra in view of Tazume further teaches:
determine a plurality of transfer apparatus interaction data having a plurality of proffers of object transfer requests, wherein determining further comprises determining, for each transfer apparatus of the plurality of transfer apparatuses: a transfer apparatus proffer of an object transfer request; and a proposed window of time for object transfer,
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
wherein determining the proposed window of time for object transfer comprises: receiving a first position for the transfer apparatus, an originator location from the plurality of object identities, and an object destination from the plurality of object destinations;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
calculating a transfer path as a function of the first position, the originator location, and the object destination;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
and determining the proposed window of time as a function of the transfer path;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
select a proffer from the plurality of proffers from the plurality of transfer apparatuses, wherein selecting comprises: determining a compatibility metric based on the proposed window of time for each transfer apparatus of the plurality of transfer apparatuses;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
and selecting a proffer as a function of the compatibility metric of the transfer apparatus corresponding to the proffer;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
and provide the transfer apparatus corresponding to the selected proffer the object transfer request.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7) Chopra further teaches that the offer may be selected and provided to the carriers based on the solved set of routes. (Chopra: paragraph [0156])
As per claim 2, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein determining the proposed window of time further comprises determining the proposed window of time as a function of the transfer path and pending object transfer requests.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
As per claim 4, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein generating the transfer apparatus interaction platform further comprises: determining a time frame for the plurality of transfer apparatuses to provide the plurality of proffers;
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
and providing to the plurality of transfer apparatuses at least an unfinished object transfer request.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
As per claim 6, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the transfer apparatus interaction data is displayed to the plurality of transfer apparatuses via the transfer apparatus interaction platform.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7) Chopra further teaches the generation and provision of a delivery service platform which may govern the functions of the system. (Chopra: paragraphs [0038, 42]) Chopra further teaches that the offer may be selected and provided to the carriers based on the solved set of routes. (Chopra: paragraph [0156])
As per claim 8, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein selecting the transfer apparatus interaction data further comprises generating a pairwise operation instruction for selecting the proffer as a function of the plurality of compatibility metrics.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145, 151], Fig. 7)
As per claim 9, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein providing the object transfer request further comprises selecting the transfer apparatus corresponding to the selected proffer.
Chopra further teaches that the system may receive current location data for a plurality of available couriers, may determine a route from the location of the courier to the pickup location and to the delivery location, and may use the estimated time that it will take the courier as compared to the predicted ETA for the delivery to score the courier in a selection process, wherein a zero score may be given to a courier who is late, and a higher score may be given to those couriers which can make the delivery early. (Chopra: paragraphs [0112, 114-116, 137-139, 141-145], Fig. 7)
As per claim 11, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches the elements of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method for initiating object transfer, the method comprising:
Chopra teaches a system and method for optimizing assignments for deliveries. (Chopra: abstract) Chopra further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computing device comprising a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Chopra: paragraphs [0030, 58], Fig. 3)
As per claims 12, 14, 16, and 18-19, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches the elements of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2, 4, 6, and 8-9, and claims 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 4, 6, and 8-9, as outlined above.
Claims 3, 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Tazume in view of Radetzki et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190114588; hereinafter "Radetzki").
As per claim 3, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein determining the object transfer compatibility metric further comprises: training a machine learning algorithm as a function of training data and the distance ability parameter, wherein the training data correlates the distance ability parameter to the transfer apparatus;
Radetzki, however, teaches that an energy requirement for a particular vehicle may configuration (which comprises a type of delivery vehicle) may be determined using a trained machine learning model, wherein, if the energy requirement does not satisfy a given threshold (a compatibility metric) along a given route, a new vehicle configuration and/or route may be determined, and the vehicle with the given configuration may not be selected for a delivery. (Radetzki: paragraphs [0128-138], Fig. 1b) Radetzki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Chopra in view of Tazume for the benefit of improving the methods for route planning known in the prior art and providing a method, an apparatus, a system and a computer program that allow more energy-efficient delivery of shipments.(Radetzki: paragraph [0004]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Radetzki with the teachings of Chopra in view of Tazume to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Chopra in view of Tazume in view of Radetzki further teaches:
determining, using the trained machine learning model, the compatibility metric as a function of the machine learning algorithm and the distance ability parameter.
Radetzki, however, teaches that an energy requirement for a particular vehicle may configuration (which comprises a type of delivery vehicle) may be determined using a machine learning model, wherein, if the energy requirement does not satisfy a given threshold (a compatibility metric) along a given route, a new vehicle configuration and/or route may be determined, and the vehicle with the given configuration may not be selected for a delivery. (Radetzki: paragraphs [0128-138], Fig. 1b) The motivation to combine Radetzki persists.
As per claim 7, Chopra in view of Tazume teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein determining the object transfer compatibility metric further comprises: receiving the at least a distance ability parameter associated with the transfer apparatus;
Radetzki, however, teaches that an energy requirement for a particular vehicle may configuration (which comprises a type of delivery vehicle) may be determined using a machine learning model, wherein, if the energy requirement does not satisfy a given threshold (a compatibility metric) along a given route, a new vehicle configuration and/or route may be determined, and the vehicle with the given configuration may not be selected for a delivery. (Radetzki: paragraphs [0128-138], Fig. 1b) Radetzki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Chopra in view of Tazume for the benefit of improving the methods for route planning known in the prior art and providing a method, an apparatus, a system and a computer program that allow more energy-efficient delivery of shipments.(Radetzki: paragraph [0004]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Radetzki with the teachings of Chopra in view of Tazume to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Chopra in view of Tazume in view of Radetzki furth