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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 11/24/25, the following is a non-final office action. Claims 1, 5, 7 are amended. Claims 2-4and 6 are cancelled. Claim 10 is new. Claims 1, 5, 7-10 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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, 5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1, 5, 7-10 these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of “Organizing Human Activity”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic transportation records, which is a method of managing interactions between people/ concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of the “Organizing Human Activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating air transportation information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing air transportation records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to air transportation records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US 10489738 B2), and further in view of (JP 6731423 B2), and further in view of Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1), and further in view of Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1), and further in view of FUJII (JP 2003028110 A).
As per claim 1, Clark et al discloses:
a processor, ( (3) In one aspect, provided is a system for delivering store items to a selected destination, comprising: a store computer that receives selected store item data including a delivery request; a delivery request database that stores the delivery request; and a delivery request application processor that provides a rule that includes criteria for selecting at least one delivery driver and generates a result that identifies a delivery driver of the at least one delivery driver satisfying the criteria of the generated rule.);
that includes,
an individual information recognition unit for recognizing individual information including a size and weight of each of...transportation objects scheduled for transportation by an aircraft, (Clark et al (US 10489738 B2) (37) In some embodiments, a determination may be made by comparing vehicle information stored at the delivery driver database 28 and item information stored at the retail system server 22. The driver qualification processor 210 may execute this comparison, for example, triggered in response to the POS terminal 20 executing a transaction that includes the purchase of the item of interest. For example, the driver qualification processor 210 may cross-reference a size and weight of an item in a store item record file and the delivery driver database 28 and pair the result with the minimum requirements for delivery of the item); a batch transportation propriety determination unit for determining a presence or absence of...capable of batch transportation of all of the related objects based on the individual information and the transportation reservation status of each of the related objects, (Clark et al: a delivery request application processor that provides a rule that includes criteria for selecting a vehicle of at least one
delivery driver capable of delivering a store item under the delivery request and generates a result that identifies a delivery driver of the at least one delivery driver having the vehicle satisfying the criteria of the generated rule; at least one sensor that determines at least one of a measurement of a vehicle to be used by the at least one delivery driver or a measurement of a store item, and generates a result which is processed by the delivery request application processor to confirm that the vehicle satisfies the criteria of the generated rule; ALSO SEE: 23) The driver qualification processor 210 may vet a list of available delivery drivers and/or their vehicles according to the rule criteria established by the rules engine 202 and/or data regarding drivers from the delivery driver database 28 and/or other source in order to generate a list of qualified available delivery drivers. The driver qualification processor 210 can generate a result that identifies a delivery driver of the at least one delivery driver satisfying pre- established rule criteria, for example, a type of vehicle for delivering items according to a delivery request, or a drug-free driver, and soon. Vehicle information may be stored at the delivery driver database 28 or other portal, and include type of vehicle, dimensions for carrying items, weight capacity, and/or other relevant data that may be used to determine whether store items selected for delivery may indeed be feasibly delivered by a vehicle of interest.); and
a transportation vehicle for transporting the air transportation objects by land includes a camera and a weight sensor, ((29) In processing the request, the delivery request application processor 26 can rely on the rules engine 202 to establish criteria for the delivery vehicle to be used. For example, a rule can establish that the vehicle for delivery must be less than 10 years old, under 100,000 miles, and so on. Another criterion may be that the vehicle must be a truck having a flatbed of a predetermined size, which can be compared to the size of the item to be delivered in the delivery request);
the individual information recognition unit recognizes the individual information based on measurement information transmitted from the transportation vehicle, the measurement information including measurement values of the size and weight obtained with the camera and the weight sensor, respectively, the camera and the weight sensor being provided with the transportation vehicle, ((38) In other embodiments, the vehicle information and/or item information may be not be available. As shown in FIG. 4, in other embodiments, at step 402, a weight scanner 54 may be provided for comparing the weight of a store item 15 for purchase and delivery and a weight capacity of a truck or other vehicle. A camera 52 or other sensor may be used to receive an image of the item 15, which can be used by a processor to determine a size of the item 15... at step 406, a camera or other sensor, for example, a smartphone 14, may be used to receive an image of the vehicle, which can be used by a processor to determine a size of the space in the vehicle for carrying the item 15. Other sensors may be used to determine the amount of weight that the vehicle can carry, the amount of compression of the springs capable of supporting the item 15, the size or power of the vehicle engine, and so on);
the related object information recognition unit starts recognizing the information of related objects, at the time when the related object information recognition unit recognizes that the user has boarded the transportation vehicle by completing boarding procedures, by communication with the transportation vehicle, ((23) In another aspect, provided is a computer system with one or more memory storage devices and one or more processors, the computer system configured to: store data related to a selected store item in a data repository of the memory storage devices, the store data including a dimension of the item; generate a rule that includes criteria for selecting at least one delivery driver; and identify a delivery driver of the at least one delivery driver satisfies the criteria of the generated rule);
Clark et al doesn’t disclose the following limitations, however, (JP 6731423 B2) discloses:
a related object information recognition unit for recognizing information of related objects that are the air transportation objects associated with each other, ((JP 6731423 B2): (26) The system stores inventory information indicating all the products related to the product handling system, including the respective racks on which the products are mounted and the positions on the rack on which the products are mounted. (1)-(25) product handling system configured as described above).
a transportation reservation status recognition unit for recognizing a transportation reservation status of each of the air transportation objects in an aircraft, ((JP 6731423 B2): The functional components of block diagram 81 also include a planner 100 that controls and coordinates the planning and reservation of navigation routes for selected vehicles 16 in the vehicle map structure. The planner 100 also plans for performing movements of the vehicle 16 to and from the selected operator station 14, including controls for vehicle start/stop operations and vehicle temporary stop/stop operations. The planner 100 also manages charging of the vehicle 16, including checking the state of charge of the vehicle 16 and moving the vehicle 16 to a vehicle charging station that requires charging. The planner 100 includes waiting for the vehicle 16 to be ready, changing the reservation status and updating the status of tasks);
the processor is further configured to,
control, through a communication unit, the transportation vehicle for transporting the air transportation objects by land, (The movement of the transport vehicle 16 is managed by a management system 18 in communication with the operator station(s) 14 and the transport vehicle 16 via a communication network 19, such as a wireless communication network. According to one embodiment, the management system 18 includes, for example, a server (described below with reference to FIG. 8) that includes circuitry configured to control navigation tasks);
make the transportation vehicle physically travel between a waiting area and a boarding area based on recognizing boarding completion information of the user, (The planner 100 also includes a vehicle navigator 104 that manages the movement of each vehicle 16 individually according to each of the transport routes defined for the vehicle 16. The vehicle navigator 104 is responsible for controlling the movement of the vehicle 16 along the sequence of markers 20a-20d in the transport path and for processing the communications it receives from the vehicle 16...transmit vehicle control information through the communication unit so as to move the transportation vehicle to a loading location corresponding to the aircraft selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by (JP 6731423 B2) in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable;
Clark et al does not disclose the following limitations, however, Duschl et al discloses:
air transportation objects or an aircraft...an...selection unit, wherein in a case where the batch transportation propriety determination unit determines that there is no aircraft capable of batch transportation of the related objects, the aircraft selection unit selects a first aircraft capable of transportation of a portion of the related objects, and selects a second aircraft or another transportation means other than an aircraft capable of transportation of a remaining portion of the related objects, (Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1): [0031] At block 320, the analytics module 230 may generate one or more update proposals to the travel itinerary. In some embodiments, the update
proposal may include suggestions for different modes of transportation. For example, if a transit train is experiencing delays due to railway conditions, the analytics module 230 may suggest traveling by bus, taxi, and/or other means of transportation to travel to the user's final destination. In some embodiments, the analytics module 230 may determine, based on the on data received from the data management module 225, that the user is traveling with luggage that is atypical in size or with a large number of luggage pieces and may generate one or more update proposals using the determination to ensure that the proposed made of transportation is capable of accommodating the luggage. For example, if a passenger is traveling with a bicycle on a transit train, the analytics module 230 may exclude suggestions for traveling in a taxi. If the passenger is traveling with large luggage, such as a large instrument, the analytics module 230 may modify a car rental reservation to upgrade to a sport utility vehicle (SUV). In some embodiments, if the analytics module 230 determines there is sufficient time in the itinerary, the analytics module 230 may generate a secondary activity proposal to add to the travel itinerary based on the impact on the travel itinerary. For example, if itis lunchtime and there is now a two-hour layover due to changes in the itinerary, the analytics module 230 may generate an update proposal that includes a reservation at a restaurant near the gate assigned to the passenger's connecting flight);
in a case where the user who has performed a transportation reservation of the related objects is included in the related objects, the aircraft selection unit preferentially assigns the user to the first aircraft complying with a desired use date/time by the transportation reservation, (Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1): [0013] For example, a passenger may be on a flight. From their seat, the passenger may use the interactive screen located on the seat in front of the passenger to enter information or otherwise identify themselves to the system (e.g., seat location, username and password, confirmation number associated with an itinerary, etc.). The system may authenticate the user so they have access to their flight information, as well as personalized information such as checked bag status, connecting flight
info, etc. In some embodiments, the identity of the passenger may be determined through a variety of means, which may include flight manifest and seat assignments);
a proposal of an arrangement by the another transportation means to the user terminal is performed before a search for the second aircraft, (Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1): [0035] In some embodiments, the travel analysis server 220 may arrange for customer transport (e.g. wheelchair -bound passenger will need trolley service from this gate at this time to that gate by that time) or allow the user to explore the services offered by the destination airport (e.g. transportation including booking a shuttle or rental car). In some embodiments, the travel analysis server 220 may provide the weather for the user's final destination; allow the user to research options and re-book a connecting or return flight (e.g. initial leg was delayed and user is going to miss their connection, so must change their connecting flight); or allow the user to explore their destination using an interactive map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Duschl et al in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Clark et al does not disclose:
in a case where a transportation destination of the portion of the related objects by the first aircraft is a first site, and an arrival date/time to the first site of the portion of the related objects by the first aircraft is a first date/time, the aircraft selection unit selects the second aircraft or the another transportation means capable of transporting the remaining portion of the related objects at a second site... and at a second date/time having a time difference with the first date/time within a predetermined time,
However, Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1) discloses in: (See Fig. 1; ALSO SEE (10): “Examples of such systems would include Lufthansa Airlines’ cargo tracking system for the “td. Flash” product; United Airlines system td. Guaranteed; Federal Express and UPS systems as well as the American Airlines Cargo system. (Distinction between the American Airlines cargo system and examples of FEDEX, UPS, United and Lufthansa noted as the American Airlines cargo system addresses the additional complexity of passenger and passenger bag volume fluxuations as well as multiple aircraft and shipment commodity types). A routing sequence is typically determined via a “table lookup” methodology well known to those skilled in the programming arts. Essentially a table lookup merely requires determining origination and destination points for shipments transport and then searching a database to determine a first available transport accommodation satisfying the shipments transport requirements within a pre-defined scheduled time frame...Having determined a first available routing sequence, the instant invention next determines if the first available accommodation in the determined routing sequence possesses sufficient size and weight capacity to accommodate the customer’s shipment 9. Should the first available routing sequence be unable to accommodate shipment due to size and weight limitations, the invention then determines a next available routing accommodation and determines if it possesses sufficient size and weight capacity to transport the customer’s shipment 39. Should the next available accommodation prove unable to provide adequate transport capacity 39, subsequent accommodations are checked for capacity thresholds, until such time an available accommodation meets pre-established delivery standards for the shipment’s arrival at a destination city. Should a transport accommodation be unable to facilitate transport of the customer’s shipment within allowable standards, the customer is notified 45 and approval sought for an alternative shipment process 48. Such alternative shipment processes 48 may include a transport accommodation of the same type as originally requested or an alternative transport accommodation”; (11) Once a transport accommodation and a preferred routing sequence has been determined to possess adequate capacity to accommodate the customer’s shipment within previously specified and guaranteed delivery standards, the shipment is then booked on the transport accommodation 12);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Dibble et al in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Clark et al or Dibble et al do not disclose:
having a distance with the first site within a predetermined distance,
However, FUJII (JP 2003028110 A) discloses in: [0014] [Means for Solving the Problems]: The above problem is solved by the following invention. According to the invention, an input device for inputting information of each order and input data of master data relating to delivery planning, and a plurality of delivery vehicles leave a distribution base and deliver a load to a plurality of delivery destinations based on the input information. A processing device for creating a delivery plan, an output device for outputting the created delivery plan, and order grouping means for dividing the order based on a master of distance data between delivery destinations and creating a group, A delivery plan drafting apparatus characterized in that a delivery plan planning process is executed for each divided order group; [0019] Based on the distance data master between destinations, extract the destinations of each order, and extract combinations between destinations that are less than or equal to the specified distance, and group the extracted combinations that have the same destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by FUJII in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, although Clark et al don’t specifically disclose when the related object information recognition unit determines that one user has two or more air transportation related objects, and in the case where the batch transportation propriety determination unit determines that there is no aircraft capable of batch transportation of the related objects, the aircraft selection unit selects the first aircraft capable of transportation of a portion of the two or more air transportation related objects, and selects the second aircraft or the another transportation means other than an aircraft capable of transportation of a remaining portion of the two or more air transportation related objects, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to repeat the steps of the invention at a subsequent predetermined time, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 9, Clark et al doesn’t disclose:
in selecting the second aircraft or the another transportation means, the aircraft selection unit transmits luggage transportation request information requesting transportation of the remaining portion of the related objects by the second aircraft, or the aircraft selection unit transmits transportation proposal information for proposing transportation of the remaining portion of the related objects by the another
transportation means.
However Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1) discloses:
[0031] At block 320, the analytics module 230 may generate one or more update proposals to the travel itinerary. In some embodiments, the update proposal may include suggestions for different modes of transportation. For example, if a transit train is experiencing delays due to railway conditions, the analytics module 230 may suggest traveling by bus, taxi, and/or other means of transportation to travel to the user's final destination. In some embodiments, the analytics module 230 may determine, based on the on data received from the data management module 225, that the user is traveling with luggage that is atypical in size or with a large number of luggage pieces and may generate one or more update proposals using the determination to ensure that the proposed made of transportation is capable of accommodating the luggage. For example, if a passenger is traveling with a bicycle on a transit train, the analytics module 230 may exclude suggestions for traveling in a taxi. If the passenger is traveling with large luggage, such as a large instrument, the analytics module 230 may modify a car rental reservation to upgrade to a sport utility vehicle (SUV). In some embodiments, if the analytics module 230 determines there is sufficient time in the itinerary, the analytics module 230 may generate a secondary activity proposal to add to the travel itinerary based on the impact on the travel itinerary. For example, if it is lunchtime and there is now a two-hour layover due to changes in the itinerary, the analytics module 230 may generate an update proposal that includes a reservation at a restaurant near the gate assigned to the passenger's connecting flight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Duschl et al in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would
have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Clark et al doesn’t disclose:
wherein the air transportation management system communicates with the transportation vehicle through the communication unit via the communication network, the processor controls the transportation vehicle by transmitting driving control instruction through the communication unit and controls the transportation vehicle to travel to the loading location of the first aircraft with having the portion of the related objects and then to travel to a loading location of the second aircraft or the another transportation means by keeping having the remaining portion of the related objects.
However, ((JP 6731423 B2) discloses: “The functional components of block diagram 81 also include a planner 100 that controls and coordinates the planning and reservation of navigation routes for selected vehicles 16 in the vehicle map structure. The planner 100 also plans for performing movements of the vehicle 16 to and from the selected operator station 14, including controls for vehicle start/stop operations and vehicle temporary stop/stop operations”; “The movement of the transport vehicle 16 is managed by a management system 18 in communication with the operator station(s) 14 and the transport vehicle 16 via a communication network 19, such as a wireless communication network. According to one embodiment, the management system 18 includes, for example, a server (described below with reference to FIG. 8) that includes circuitry configured to control navigation tasks.”; “The planner 100 also includes a vehicle navigator 104 that manages the movement of each vehicle 16 individually according to each of the transport routes defined for the vehicle 16. The vehicle navigator 104 is responsible for controlling the movement of the vehicle 16 along the sequence of markers 20a-20d in the transport path and for processing the communications it receives from the vehicle 16...transmit vehicle control information through the communication unit so as to move the transportation vehicle to a loading location corresponding to the aircraft selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by (JP 6731423 B2) in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US 10489738 B2), and further in view of (JP 6731423 B2), and further in view of Duschlet al (US 20170228667 A1), and further in view of Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1), and further in view of FUJII (JP 2003028110 A), and further in view of KONIG et al( AU 2013371972 A1).
As per claim 7, Clark et al does not disclose the following, however, Kiong discloses:
the processor includes a related object transfer arrangement unit for arranging a transfer by the transportation vehicle of the portion of the related objects to a loading location of the first aircraft, and a transfer by the transportation vehicle of the remaining portion of the related objects to the second aircraft or the another transportation means, in the case where the first aircraft and the second aircraft or the another transportation means are selected by the aircraft selection unit, (Kiong: Thus an area may be divided into geographic regions based on the temporal density of vehicle requests of different portions thereof, and each cluster may then be associated with a one of the regions, e.g. based upon a first request of the cluster being associated with a location e.g. pick-up location being within the region...The one or more thresholds may include a threshold in relation to a number of vehicle requests comprised by the cluster and/or a time related threshold. Preferably both a time related threshold and a threshold in relation to the number of requests is used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Kiong in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US 10489738 B2), and further in view of (JP 6731423 B2), and further in view of Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1), and further in view of Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1), and further in view of FUJII (JP 2003028110 A), and further in view of and further in view of Frank ( US 6571197 B11).
As per claim 5, Clark et al does not disclose: wherein in a case where a user who has performed the transportation reservation of the air transportation objects, and luggage requested to be transported at a time of the time of the transportation reservation or carried by the user, are included in the related objects, the aircraft selection unit selects the first aircraft capable of transportation of the user and the luggage.
However Frank ( US 6571197 B1) discloses in: (7) As shown in FIG. 1, the data store 40 is coupled to the server 30. Data store 40 includes a predefined inventory of items 42 such as, for example, tables, chairs, desks, beds, appliances, boxes, personal and business furniture and equipment, and the like, and associated characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the above limitations as taught by Frank in the systems of Clark et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Prior Art Considered
The following art is considered relevant by the Examiner, however not used in the present Office Action:
TANAKA UP 2007065887 A} YANG et al (CN LO7 159715 A} KABILOV (WO 2017037235 Al) HARADA et al (CN 113635899 B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, applicant has made several amendments to the claims, however, these amendments do not overcome the 101 rejection. The [resent claims disclose organizing human activity and transportation logistic. With regard to transportation logistics, they involve scheduling , resource allocation and transportation coordination, which are all abstract ideas.
Specifically, Applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 is amended herein to recite that a transportation vehicle for transporting the air transportation objects by land includes a camera and a weight sensor, the individual information recognition unit recognizes the individual information based on measurement information transmitted from the transportation vehicle, the measurement information including measurement values of the size and weight being obtained with the camera and the weight sensor, respectively, the camera and the weight sensor being provided with the transportation vehicle”. However, the camera and weight sensor do not amount to significantly more because the system does not improve the camera, or the weight sensor. The camera and weight sensor ae also conventional, and used in a generic manner, and are not tied to a technological improvement. The system also does not improve or create a new communication protocol or vehicle-control algorithm and is therefore not an inventive concept.
Applicant further argues that “Claim 1 is further amended to recite that the related object information recognition unit starts recognizing the information of related objects, at the time when the related object information recognition unit recognizes that the user has boarded the transportation vehicle by completing boarding procedures, by communication with the transportation vehicle”. However, this limitation is merely standard data processing and not a specific technological improvement.
Furthermore, Applicant argues “Claim 1 is amended herein to recite that a transportation vehicle for transporting the air transportation objects by land includes a camera and a weight sensor, the individual information recognition unit recognizes the individual information based on measurement information transmitted from the transportation vehicle, the measurement information including measurement values of the size and weight being obtained with the camera and the weight sensor, respectively, the camera and the weight sensor being provided with the transportation vehicle. Claim 1 is further amended to recite that the related object information recognition unit starts recognizing the information of related objects, at the time when the related object information recognition unit recognizes that the user has boarded the transportation vehicle by completing boarding procedures, by communication with the transportation vehicle.”. However, as already disclosed, The camera and weight sensor ae also conventional, and used in a generic manner, and are not tied to a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 is further amended to recite that processor is further configured to: control, through a communication unit, the transportation vehicle for transporting the air
transportation objects by land; make the transportation vehicle physically travel between
a waiting area and a boarding area based on recognizing boarding completion information of the user; and transmit vehicle control information through the communication unit so as to move the transportation vehicle to a loading location corresponding to the aircraft selected:. However, the components in the claims are conventional, used in a generic manner and are not tied to ta technological improvement. The camera, sensors and vehicle merely support the higher-level abstract idea of transportation scheduling and they merely gather and communicate data for the abstract idea. With regard to the movement of the vehicle, the claim as written merely instructs a generic processor to control a generic vehicle to move to a location, which is a conventional use of known transportation vehicles and control systems.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks filed 11/24/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims (s) 1, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US 10489738 B2), and further in view of (JP 6731423 B2), and further in view of Duschl et al (US 20170228667 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1), and further in view of FUJII (JP 2003028110 A).
Similarly, claims 5, 7, 9 and newly added claim 10 are now rejected further in view of Dibble et al (US 8131573 B1), and further in view of FUJII (JP 2003028110 A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
December 11, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628