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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on June 13, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, the cancellation of claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, and the addition of claims 21, 22, 23. No amendments to the specification were received.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the independent claims no longer simply recite mental processes under Step 2A Prong 1. Examiner disagrees as the entire transportation management plan and employment of a rider for package handling incorporate abstract processes as stated below. The addition of a communication interface for contacting and directing riders’ actions and a barcode reader are applications of existing additional elements in traditional roles. The analysis of the attributes of a rider and cooperative scheduling with a package movement are useful applications of software, but amount to applying software to improve the efficiency of the transportation plan and fall short of a practical application.
Thus, the Examiner rejects the argument that the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments in favor of claims are compelling. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendments and arguments for the following reasons. Applicant’s transportation system includes a request for loading and unloading a package within a corporate facility, acknowledged responsibility for the same, and leverage of the employees mobile terminal device as elements of the system. Applicant’s amendments added a barcode/IC chip reader providing automated delivery status information to complete the information loop back to the package transportation and delivery system. No prior art taught the use of employee personnel riding the facility transportation system as package delivery personnel or the screening and evaluation of employee attributes and qualifications as necessary elements of the process.
The amended claims overcome the prior art.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of managing the loading or unloading of a package from a work vehicle, in a work building, by an employee scheduled to ride on the vehicle that transports the package.
Claim 8 discloses a method, comprising: An information processing method for managing loading or unloading of a package, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions), the information processing method comprising:
storing information on the package to be transported within a site of a factory and attributes of each employee working at the factory; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk);
setting a condition on an employee who can be in charge of loading or unloading the package based on the information on the package, the condition including at least a condition of having experience in handling equipment or materials that are the package; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions);
formulating a transportation plan for the package based on the information on the package; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions);
identifying at least one employee who has attributes satisfying the condition, from among one or more employees who are scheduled to ride while transporting the package, based on the attributes of each employee and the condition on the employee who can be in charge of loading or unloading the package, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions), the attributes including at least one of a respective department, job responsibilities, work of which the employee is in charge, age, heath status, and experience in handling equipment or materials that are the package; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions),
notifying the at least one employee of a request for loading or unloading the package, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions).
in a case in which the at least one employee accepts the request, setting the at least one employee who accepted the request as the employee in charge of loading the package onto the vehicle or unloading the package from the vehicle: (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk),
after the employee in charge has completed loading or unloading the package, receive, information of the employee in charge who has completed loading or unloading the package; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
determine, upon receiving the information on the employee that the employee in charge has completed loading or unloading the package, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk).
Additional limitations employ the method to include notifying the employee of the transportation plan for the package, the transportation plan including a loading stop for the package, a loading time, an unloading stop, and an unloading time, (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- claim 9).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion as well as organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles based on mitigating risk.
Claims 1-2, and 15-16, recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 8-9. Claims 6, 13, 20-23 do not recite abstract ideas.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as an information processing apparatus, a memory configured to store information, a vehicle, a communication interface, a mobile terminal carried by the at least one employee, a processor, an employee identification card with a barcode or an IC chip, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and a barcode reader or IC chip reader in the vehicle, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20-23 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, are not rejected under prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 6, 13, 20-23 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16. The closest prior art to the invention is Donnelly, (US 20200050198 A1), “Systems And Methods For Providing A Ridesharing Vehicle Service Using An Autonomous Vehicle.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in these claims wherein the novelty is in the combination of all of the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding Claim 8, An information processing method for managing loading and unloading of a package, is taught by Donnelly. A vehicle traveling within a site of a factory, setting a condition on an employee who can be in charge of loading and unloading the package based on the information on the package, and identifying attributes satisfying the condition to transport the package are not taught. Prior art individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624