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 Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on July 21, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-19 have been amended.
Claims 10 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 9, 11, 13-16 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-9, 11 and 13-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 9 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 17) recites the following steps:
An information processing method the information processing method comprising receiving, from a delivery vehicle information indicating a package was not delivered to a recipient,
calculating, based on first information on a travel scheduled route of the delivery vehicle that delivers the package of a user the recipient, an emission amount that is an amount of carbon dioxide predicted to be emitted by the delivery vehicle to redeliver the package for each of a plurality of first time zones in which the package is able to be redelivered to the user,
determining a recommended one of the plurality of first time zones to be the time zone with the lowest calculated emission about,
transmitting to a user, information including the plurality of time zones and calculated emission amounts for each, and
displaying the plurality of time zones and calculated emission amounts for each, and the recommended one of the plurality of time zones.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) calculating an emission amount to redeliver a package for each of a plurality of first times zones (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 17 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a computer (Claim 9 and 17)
a controller (Claim 1)
a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute an information processing method (Claim 17)
a user terminal of the recipient (Claim1, 9 and 17)
via the network (Claim1, 9 and 17)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 5, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a controller
a terminal related to the recipient
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN111930818B RDE data post-processing method, device, equipment and storage medium: Which teaches “Dividing time windows according to regulations, determining an average emission amount set corresponding to each time window…”
Boss 2014/0207700 Which teaches “A shipping option is selected and implemented for a shipping of an item as a function of the indicated environmental impact weighting” but does not teach the redelivered item.
Jones, Jr. 8,498,818 teaches “the reports may provide a total amount of carbon dioxide emitted for a particular shipment or group of shipments.” But did not teach that this calculation incorporated the time zones.
Winebrake et al. 2009/0210313 teaches identifying available environmentally friendly shipping options but does not teach deciding a time zone.
Sanchez et al 2022/0067751 teaches the computational challenge of trying to determine a value indicative of the carbon emissions associated with shipping a package but does not teach the redelivery of an item and the associated time zone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: As discussed during the interview, the independent claims are amended to recite additional elements that recite more than a mere mental process, and integrate any abstract ideas into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites the following additional elements: receiving information about package delivery via a network; transmitting via a network information of times zones and emissions amounts and that a generic electronic appliance displays the information. The receiving, transmitting and displaying steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining a recommendation step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer/ information processing device that performs the determining step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the computer/ information processing device). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the computer/ information processing device). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571) 272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626