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
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed7/11/2025. Claims 1-3 were amended. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/11/2025, with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the processor is configured to acquire position information relating to a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space of a vehicle, other than seats for driving the vehicle, the layout being determined by a user who wishes to use the vehicle, the acquiring including: configuring, by an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance and in accordance with the application. As now amended, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claim recites subject matter that is not directed to an abstract idea, that is integrated into a practical application, and that adds significantly more to the alleged abstract idea by providing technical improvements, and thus the claims recite patentable eligible subject matter. Contrary to the Office Action's position that the features of independent claim 1 recite features that cover certain methods of organizing human activity (Office Action at p. 3), independent claim 1 now affirmatively recites the acquiring includes: configuring, by an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance and in accordance with the application. Such features do not reasonably cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as asserted by the Office Action at p. 3, which is an overgeneralization of the claims… Moreover, amended independent claim 1 recites more than just merely using generically recited computer elements to implement the alleged abstract idea (Office Action at p. 4). Rather, these claims have been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea by reciting not only acquiring position information relating to a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space of a vehicle, but also taking into account a particular technique of configuring, by an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance and in accordance with the application. As such, meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea are recited in independent claim 1 since the independent claim has been amended to recite particular operations, for which the processor acts upon based on the acquisition of the position information and via the application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal. Therefore, these additional claim elements, as amended in independent claim 1 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea… Still further, when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. More specifically, as a consequence of configuring, by an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance and in accordance with the application, a server and a vehicle providing system enable a user to use a vehicle that reflects an interior created in advance by the user. The combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 recites subject matter that integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea”, (see remarks , pg. 4-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for organizing a delivery to a vehicle, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as two individuals can interact with one another utilizing a database to identify a vehicle with space to accept delivery of a package. The computing elements such as “server, memory, processor, terminal, application, user terminal of claim 1” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 7/11/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Schares.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for delivery to a vehicle.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “acquire position information relating to a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space of a vehicle, other than seats for driving the vehicle, the lay out being determined by a user who wishes to use the vehicle; the acquiring including: configuring, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance; present the position information to a provider [...] that is managed by a provider capable of providing at least one of the vehicle or the component to the user; and instruct the provider to provide the vehicle, in which the component is disposed in the vehicle cabin space according to the position information, or provide a component according to the position information” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (server, memory, processor, terminal, application, user terminal of claim 1) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-5 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (server, memory, processor, terminal of claim 1). The server, memory, processor, terminal of claim 1, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the server in claims 2-3; processor in claims 2 and 5; terminal of claim 3-4; system of claims 3-5, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190205817 - hereinafter Sakurada) in view of Schares et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250223119 - hereinafter Schares).
Re. claim 1, Sakurada teaches:
A server comprising:
a memory; and [Sakurada; ¶71].
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to: [Sakurada; ¶75].
acquire position information relating to a layout of a component to be disposed in a cabin space of a vehicle, other than seats for driving the vehicle, the lay out being determined by a user who wishes to use the vehicle; [Sakurada; ¶82 and specifically step “f11” as it acquires information from the user with respect to where vehicle is parked in a parking lot where the user will be the receiver receiving a package to be placed in the parked vehicle].
present the position information to a provider terminal that is managed by a provider capable of providing at least one of the vehicle or the component to the user; and [Sakurada; Fig. 10, ¶100-¶101 shows information presented to the deliverer terminal with respect to information received to assist in delivery to the receiver vehicle in parking lot].
instruct the provider to provide the vehicle, in which the component is disposed in the vehicle cabin space according to the position information, or provide the component according to the position information. [Sakurada; Fig. 10, ¶100-¶101].
Sakurada doesn’t teach, Schares teaches:
the acquiring including: configuring, by an application comprising instructions for execution on a user terminal, an interior of the vehicle; and creating the interior of the vehicle in advance and in accordance with the application; [Schares; ¶6, ¶146 and Figs. 6a-d shows mapping of the compartments for cargo storage in the truck such as “6a-d each show an advantageous compartment configuration of a storage unit according to the invention; the storage units (shelving units), which are located inside parcel delivery vehicles for the storage of parcels, can have a fixed compartment configuration as in FIGS. 6a to 6d, e.g. in FIG. 6a with a total of 99 compartments in the layout with 63 compartments of size S (30 cm×10 cm×50 cm), 24 compartments of size M (35 cm×20 cm×50 cm) and 12 compartments of size L (35 cm×40 cm×50 cm), FIG. 6b with a total of 91 compartments in the division with 55 compartments of size S (30 cm×10 cm×50 cm), 24 compartments of size M (20 cm×40 cm×50 cm) and 12 compartments of size L (40 cm×40 cm×50 cm), FIG. 6c with a total of 75 compartments in the layout with 31 size S compartments (30 cm×10 cm×50 cm), 32 compartments of size M (20 cm×40 cm×50 cm) and 12 compartments of size L (40 cm×40 cm×50 cm) and FIG. 6d with a total of 69 compartments in the layout with 31 compartments of size S (30 cm×10 cm×50 cm), 20 compartments of size M (20 cm×40 cm×50 cm) and 18 compartments of size L (40 cm×40 cm×50 cm)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Schares in the system of Sakurada, 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.
Re. claim 3, Sakurada in view of Schares teaches server of claim 1.
Sakurada further teaches:
A vehicle providing system comprising:
the server; [Sakurada; ¶73-¶77].
a user terminal that is managed by the user; and [Sakurada; ¶76 shows a receiver user terminal 210].
the provider terminal, wherein: [Sakurada; Fig. 10, ¶100-¶101, also Fig. 1 shows deliverer user terminal as 200].
the provider terminal is configured to notify the user terminal that the vehicle, in which the component is disposed in the vehicle cabin space according to the position information, is ready, or the component according to the position information is ready. [Sakurada; ¶110-¶115 shows notification sent to receiver when delivery of the package is finally completed].
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada in view of Schares in view of Hall et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220084340 - hereinafter Hall).
Re. claim 2, Sakurada in view of Schares teaches the server of Claim 1.
Sakurada doesn’t teach, Hall teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, based on the position information, manage operation of a component factory including at least one of a factory that produces new instances of a plurality of the components or a recycling factory that recycles the component returned from the user into a reusable recycled component. [Hall; ¶16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Sakurada by including limitation(s) as taught by Hall to include the above features in the invention of Sakurada. One would be motivated to modify Sakurada with the teachings of Hall since “ability to deliver packages more efficiently at lower costs is desired”. [Hall; ¶3].
Re. claim 4, Sakurada in view of Schares teaches the server of Claim 3.
Sakurada doesn’t teach, Hall teaches:
wherein the provider terminal is configured to arrange delivery of the component returned from the user to the recycling factory that recycles the component into the reusable recycled component. [Hall; ¶16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Sakurada by including limitation(s) as taught by Hall to include the above features in the invention of Sakurada. One would be motivated to modify Sakurada with the teachings of Hall since “ability to deliver packages more efficiently at lower costs is desired”. [Hall; ¶3].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada in view of Schares in view of Hall in view of Haddad et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240395087 - hereinafter Haddad).
Re. claim 5, Sakurada in view of Schares in view of Hall teaches the system of Claim 4.
Sakurada doesn’t teach, Haddad teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
in a case in which the component has been determined by the user, receive an instruction of whether or not to use the recycled component; and [Haddad; ¶35-¶41 shows returns initiated by recipient, label is then created, and delivery personnel picks up package to be returned back to facility].
in a case of receiving the instruction to use the recycled component, instruct the recycling factory to deliver, to the provider, the recycled component corresponding to the component determined by the user. [Haddad; ¶35-¶41 shows returns initiated by recipient, label is then created, and delivery personnel picks up package to be returned back to facility].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Sakurada by including limitation(s) as taught by Haddad to include the above features in the invention of Sakurada. One would be motivated to modify Sakurada with the teachings of Haddad since it “ensures optimal route efficiency and time management”. [Haddad; ¶10].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 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 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628