DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and an information processing device for determining a berth to be allocated to a delivery person. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims recite a judicial exception, specifically that of an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of determining a berth to be allocated to a delivery person, by specifically “setting priority degrees of the berths for each of delivery persons…”; “specifying a first work time slot in which a first delivery person to whom none of the berths has been allocated uses any one of the berths…”; and “executing an allocation process including selecting a first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person…based on a priority degree of each of the berths set for the first delivery person, determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the first work time slot for the first delivery person and a second work time slot for the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met…, allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the condition is not met, making a comparison between a first priority degree and a second priority degree…, and canceling allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first priority degree is higher than the second priority degree, wherein the information processing device repeatedly executes the allocation process while changing the first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person until one of the berths is allocated to the first delivery person”. First, the limitations of at least “setting priority degrees of the berths for each of delivery persons…”; “specifying a first work time slot in which a first delivery person to whom none of the berths has been allocated uses any one of the berths…”; and “…selecting a first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person…based on a priority degree of each of the berths set for the first delivery person, determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the first work time slot for the first delivery person and a second work time slot for the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met…and canceling allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first priority degree is higher than the second priority degree”, as drafted, are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an information processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an information processing device” language, “setting priority degrees of the berths for each of delivery persons…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining and marking the priority degrees of the berths, e.g. mentally or writing it down using pen and paper. Similarly, the limitation of “specifying a first work time slot in which a first delivery person to whom none of the berths has been allocated uses any one of the berths…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by an information processing device” language, “specifying a first work time slot…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually setting or determining the first work time slot, e.g. mentally or writing it down using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the limitations of at least “… determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the first work time slot for the first delivery person and a second work time slot for the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met…, making a comparison between a first priority degree and a second priority degree…” are drawn to performing calculations relating to determining a berth to be allocated to a delivery person, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Furthermore, the limitations of at least “setting priority degrees of the berths for each of delivery persons…”; “specifying a first work time slot in which a first delivery person to whom none of the berths has been allocated uses any one of the berths…”; and “executing an allocation process including selecting a first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person…based on a priority degree of each of the berths set for the first delivery person, determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the first work time slot for the first delivery person and a second work time slot for the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met…, allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the condition is not met, making a comparison between a first priority degree and a second priority degree…, and canceling allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first priority degree is higher than the second priority degree, wherein the information processing device repeatedly executes the allocation process while changing the first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person until one of the berths is allocated to the first delivery person”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of determining a berth to be allocated to a delivery person. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing determining a berth to be allocated to a delivery person, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In fact, the claims include language drawn to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – an information processing device to perform the steps of the invention. The processing device in the claimed steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). For example, claims 2, 9, and 16 describe using the information processing device to set the priority degrees of berths and describing the allocation process further. Claims 3, 10, and 17 further describe using the information processing device to set a priority degree of a given berth. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, claims 2, 9, and 16 also include limitations that as drafted, are drawn to performing calculations regarding “making a comparison between a first parcel amount and a second parcel amount…” which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 11,14-15, and 18 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleman et al. (US 2018/0341804 A1, herein Aleman) in view of Morris (US 2020/0273133 A1, herein Morris).
As per claim 1, Aleman teaches of a method executed by an information processing device that determines a berth to be allocated to a delivery person from among a plurality of berths provided in a warehouse (abstract and pg. 4, [0037] which describes assigning dock doors to arriving transportation vehicles, i.e. route information; and pg. 7, [0067] which describes how the dock management server generates door assignments for transportation vehicles), the method comprising:
setting priority degrees of the berths for each of delivery persons, each of the priority degrees of the berths being set based on first information and second information, the first information indicating a position of a storage location in the warehouse for each of one or more parcels to be delivered by a corresponding one of the delivery persons, and the second information indicating a position of each of the berths in the warehouse (pg. 7, [0068] and Fig. 7 which describes how the dock management server is configured to manage the route for the transportation vehicle, including providing a dock door assignment, where the dock management server may generate a dock door assignment at least in part on a centroid that corresponds to an average location for the final location of each item within the environment; and pg. 8, [0074] which describes how the dock management server may additionally calculate the sum of distances from each of the available unloading doors to the final location for each item, and the total sum may be referred to as the “cost” of the door, where the dock management server may then assign the transportation vehicle to the door with the lower cost (i.e., high priority));
specifying a first work time slot in which a first delivery person to whom none of the berths has been allocated uses any one of the berths, the first delivery person being included in the delivery persons; and
executing an allocation process including
selecting a first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person, from among the berths, based on a priority degree of each of the berths set for the first delivery person (pg. 8, [0072-0073] which describes the dock management server receives information regarding a plurality of available loading doors that do not have a transportation vehicle assigned to them, where the dock management server may generate a dock door assignment for the transportation vehicle by identifying the dock door with the shortest distance between the dock door and the centroid and transmitting the door assignment accordingly),
wherein the information processing device repeatedly executes the allocation process while changing the first berth as a candidate to be allocated to the first delivery person until one of the berths is allocated to the first delivery person (pg. 8, [0073] which describes how the dock management server may calculate the distance between each of the available unloading doors and the centroid on a iterative basis and store the distance of each available unloading door and the centroid in an ordered list; and pg. 8, [0074] which describes how the dock management server may determine the cost for each available door on an iterative basis, continuing determining the cost for each available door in the list until there are no additional available doors to be processed).
However, Aleman fails to explicitly teach of determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the work time slots for the first delivery person and the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met, allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the condition is not met, making a comparison between a first priority degree and a second priority degree when it is determined that the condition is met, and canceling allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first priority degree is higher than the second priority degree. Morris teaches of systems and methods for prioritizing trailers at receiving facility, specifically executing an allocation process including
determining whether a condition that a second delivery person has already been allocated to the first berth and the first work time slot for the first delivery person and a second work time slot for the second delivery person at least partially overlap each other is met, the second delivery person being included in the delivery persons (pg. 3, [0036] which describes how a sensor at the loading dock can detect the presence of another trailer and submit via the trailer assignment and prioritization system a message to the driver of the vehicle or to an unmanned vehicle which in response automatically removes the other trailer),
allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the condition is not met (pg. 3, [0032] which describes how the trailers may be pushed, towed, or otherwise moved to an assigned loading dock by the powered vehicle; and pg. 3, [0034] which describes how a function of the trailer assignment and prioritization system is to manage the utilization of the loading docks by the trailer for identifying a trailer for unloading its contents at a specific loading dock according to predetermined criteria),
making a comparison between a first priority degree and a second priority degree when it is determined that the condition is met, the first priority degree being a priority degree of the first berth set for the first delivery person, and the second priority degree being a priority degree of the first berth set for the second delivery person, and
canceling allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first priority degree is higher than the second priority degree (pg. 3, [0032] which describes how a ground vehicle may be controlled by the trailer assignment and prioritization system where the system can control the ground vehicle to remove one trailer form the dock door and retrieve another trailer according to its ranking calculated by the system).
Aleman teaches of methods and systems for transportation dock management. Morris teaches of systems and methods for prioritizing trailers at receiving facility, specifically including the priority degree comparison as claimed. Both references are drawn to managing vehicle allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aleman with the priority degree comparison as taught by Morris for the purpose of determining a priority of a particular trailer and moving up the trailer in a priority queue as needed, where the rank may or may not change depending on events determined in real-time (Morris, pg. 5, [0046, 0051]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve by ensuring a proper and up to date reflection of the rankings to optimize efficiency of the vehicle allocation.
As per claim 8, it refers to a non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Aleman et al. (US 2018/0341904 A1, herein Aleman) discloses the steps are performed by a single memory, which may include various types of computer-readable media (pg. 2, [0025] and Fig. 2).
As per claim 15, it refers to an information processing device for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Aleman et al. (US 2018/0341904 A1, herein Aleman) discloses the steps are performed on a dock management system along coupled with mobile computing devices (pg. 2, [0020-0022] and Fig. 1).
As per claim 4, Aleman in view of Morris discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Aleman further teaches wherein in a case where parcels to be delivered by one delivery person included in the delivery persons are dispersedly stored at a plurality of storage locations, the information processing device sets a priority degree of a given berth for the one delivery person to be higher as a total value of distances from the storage locations for the parcels to be delivered by the one delivery person to the given berth is smaller when setting a priority degree of each of the berths for the one delivery person (pg. 7, [0068] and Fig. 7 which describes how the dock management server is configured to manage the route for the transportation vehicle, including providing a dock door assignment, where the dock management server may generate a dock door assignment at least in part on a centroid that corresponds to an average location for the final location of each item within the environment; and pg. 8, [0074] which describes how the dock management server may additionally calculate the sum of distances from each of the available unloading doors to the final location for each item, and the total sum may be referred to as the “cost” of the door, where the dock management server may then assign the transportation vehicle to the door with the lower cost (i.e., high priority)).
As per claim 11, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 18, it refers to the information processing device of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 7, Aleman in view of Morris discloses all the elements of claim 1, and Aleman further teaches of transmitting a result of executing the allocation process to a terminal device of the first delivery person and a terminal device of the second delivery person (pg. 2, [0022] which describes how each worker is equipped with a mobile computing device; and pg. 4, [0037] which describes how the dock management server may be configured to manage the routes for the fleet and provide route and status information to managers, drivers, and customers, where route information may include dock door assignments).
As per claim 14, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 16-17, and 19 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleman et al. (US 2018/0341804 A1, herein Aleman) in view of Morris (US 2020/0273133 A1, herein Morris) in further view of Millhouse et al. (US 2019/0164128 A1, herein Millhouse).
As per claim 2, Aleman in view of Morris discloses all the elements of claim 1, and but fails to explicitly teach of parcel amount. Millhouse teaches of system and method for gate and resource assignment at a distribution center, specifically wherein the information processing device sets the priority degrees of the berths for each of the delivery persons based on the first information, the second information, and third information, the third information being information that indicates a parcel amount of the one or more parcels to be delivered by the corresponding one of the delivery persons; and
the allocation process further includes
making a comparison between a first parcel amount and a second parcel amount when it is determined that the first priority degree is equal to the second priority degree, the first parcel amount being a parcel amount of one or more parcels to be delivered by the first delivery person, and the second parcel amount being a parcel amount of one or more parcels to be delivered by the second delivery person, and
canceling the allocation of the first berth to the second delivery person and allocating the first berth to the first delivery person when it is determined that the first parcel amount is larger than the second parcel amount (pg. 3, [0041] which describes how the control circuit may prioritize certain shipments over other shipments, such as the amount of particular items in a vehicle and their relative importance, such as those trucks moving a greater number of high priority items than other trucks, where the trucks with the greatest number of high priority items may be assigned the best gate positions).
Aleman in view of Morris teaches of methods and systems for transportation dock management, specifically including the priority degree comparison as claimed. Millhouse teaches of system and method for gate and resource assignment at a distribution center, specifically including factoring parcel amount as claimed. All the references are drawn to managing vehicle allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aleman in view of Morris with the factoring of parcel amount as taught by Millhouse for the purpose of assigning loading facilities and determining schedules to efficiently and effectively load and unload merchandise at a distribution center, warehouse, or retail store (Millhouse, pg. 1, [0011]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve by increasing in efficiency and effectiveness. Furthermore, Examiner submits that Aleman in view of Morris teaches of including the priority degrees of berth in determining berth allocation, which is similar to the concept of including of parcel amount determining berth allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I.B). The prior art Aleman in view of Morris teaches of comparing priority degrees for determining proper berth allocation. As shown in the cited Millhouse reference, the concept of factoring in parcel amount in determining priority/order for gate or schedule assignments is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the simple substitution of one known element for another, for the same purpose of optimizing vehicle allocation, in which the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
As per claim 9, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 16, it refers to the information processing device of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 3, Aleman in view of Morris in further view of Millhouse discloses all the elements of claim 2, and Aleman further teaches wherein in a case where parcels to be delivered by one delivery person included in the delivery persons are dispersedly stored at a plurality of storage locations, the information processing device sets a priority degree of a given berth for the one delivery person to be higher as a distance from a storage location at which a largest parcel amount of parcels is stored, among the storage locations, to the given berth is shorter when setting a priority degree of each of the berths for the one delivery person (pg. 7, [0068] and Fig. 7 which describes how the dock management server is configured to manage the route for the transportation vehicle, including providing a dock door assignment, where the dock management server may generate a dock door assignment at least in part on a centroid that corresponds to an average location for the final location of each item within the environment; and pg. 8, [0074] which describes how the dock management server may additionally calculate the sum of distances from each of the available unloading doors to the final location for each item, and the total sum may be referred to as the “cost” of the door, where the dock management server may then assign the transportation vehicle to the door with the lower cost (i.e., high priority)).
As per claim 10, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 17, it refers to the information processing device of claim 16 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 5, Aleman in view of Morris in further view of Millhouse discloses all the elements of claim 2, and Aleman further teaches wherein in a case where parcels to be delivered by one delivery person included in the delivery persons are stored dispersedly at a plurality of storage locations, the information processing device sets a priority degree of a given berth for the one delivery person to be higher as a sum of values is smaller when setting a priority degree of each of the berths for the one delivery person, each of the values being obtained by multiplying a distance from one location included in the storage locations for the parcels to be delivered by the one delivery person to the given berth by a parcel amount of the one or more parcels that are stored at the one location (pg. 7, [0068] and Fig. 7 which describes how the dock management server is configured to manage the route for the transportation vehicle, including providing a dock door assignment, where the dock management server may generate a dock door assignment at least in part on a centroid that corresponds to an average location for the final location of each item within the environment; and pg. 8, [0074] which describes how the dock management server may additionally calculate the sum of distances from each of the available unloading doors to the final location for each item, and the total sum may be referred to as the “cost” of the door, where the dock management server may then assign the transportation vehicle to the door with the lower cost (i.e., high priority)).
As per claim 12, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 19, it refers to the information processing device of claim 16 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleman et al. (US 2018/0341804 A1, herein Aleman) in view of Morris (US 2020/0273133 A1, herein Morris) in further view of Hance et al. (US 2019/0066041, herein Hance).
As per claim 6, Aleman in view of Morris discloses all the elements of claim 1, and but fails to explicitly teach of correcting the first work time slot. Hance teaches dynamic truck route planning between automated facilities, including correcting the first work time slot for the first delivery person when none of the berths is allocated to the first delivery person even if the allocation process is executed a predetermined number of times (pg. 14, [0139] which describes how the time slot at outbound loading dock is previously allocated to a truck expected to be arriving next, where if the vehicle loading/unloading is not performed during a “no-load” interval, then a timeslot for the first arriving vehicle after the no-load interval can be previously allocated by the warehouse and supply-chain coordinator and the truck can be released before the time slot is allocated to another truck; and pg. 15, [0145] warehouse and supply-chain coordinator determines that the first truck has to park and wait until the second truck is loaded, and allocates a parking spot for the first truck to park in, and further allocates a time slot at the outgoing loading dock starting at time T3 to the first truck and notifies them accordingly).
Aleman in view of Morris teaches of methods and systems for transportation dock management, specifically including the priority degree comparison as claimed. Hance teaches dynamic truck route planning between automated facilities, specifically including correcting the first work time slot as claimed. All the references are drawn to managing vehicle allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Aleman in view of Morris with the correcting the first work time slot as taught by Hance for the purpose allowing for accurate prediction of arrival time by which the delivery vehicle is expected to reach the warehouse (Hance, pg. 3, [0032]). By doing so, one would reasonably expect the overall appeal of the invention to improve in efficiency by incorporating time management/correction practices accordingly.
As per claim 13, it refers to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
As per claim 20, it refers to the information processing device of claim 15 used for performing the above steps. It recites limitations already addressed by claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same art and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imai et al. (NPL 2003) teaches of berth allocation with service priority.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights