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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Argument
Regarding 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. However, 101 rejection on claims 1-18, 20 are withdrawn for at least the reason that “control the movable body to deliver the one or more items” integrates the abstract idea into practical application.
Applicant first asserts various steps of claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea without providing reasoning why these limitations do not falls into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activities. With the exception of the controlling of the movable body limitation identified above, examiner respectfully disagree for at least the reason that these steps are all part of the establishment of business relationship to ship orders of various users. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then goes on to argue that the processor is not “caused to merely perform an alleged abstract idea … but rather, to integrate the limitation into a practical application by providing an automated delivery system capable of processing information from multiple user terminal” Applicant goes on to argue that prior system is unable to interact with more than one terminal user. Examiner respectfully disagree for at least the reason that claim 1, for example, merely requires “an alert for a first user” being sent without requiring any other user terminal’s interaction when the vehicle is overweight. Therefore, the alleged improvement is not claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant did not present separate argument for claim 19, therefore, please refer to above for claim 19 as claim 19 is the only claim with an outstanding 101 rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed to 103 rejection, Applicant’s argument is persuasive with regards to claims 1-18, 20 but NOT claim 19.
Applicant’s argument is based on the displaying step when weight exceeding a limit not being taught. Examiner agree and therefore, 103 rejection with respect to claims 1-18, 20 are withdrawn.
Claim 19 is a method claim. A method claim having contingent limitation would require “only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04 II. In this case, exceeding limit is a contingent limitation that need not be required as claim 19 explicitly spells out that movable body would be controlled when the opposite condition is met. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not applicable to claim 19.
Examiner recommends either cancel claim 19 or rewrite claim 19 to require at least two loops where the weight exceeds the limit during the first loop and weight does not exceed the limit in a second loop. The reason being both situations are needed to overcome both 103 and 101 rejection (one condition for each rejection).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 19, examiner believes the following limitations recite an abstract idea.
Receiving information identifying the plurality of users for the collective order;
Receiving selection information corresponding to the one or more items;
Associating, based on the selection information, one or more items with one or more of the plurality of users, and performing payment processing for each user in accordance with the items associated with the user;
displaying, based on a total weight of the one or more items of the plurality of users exceeding a per-delivery weight that can be carried by the movable body, an alert for a first user having the highest total weight of items associated with the first user, from among the plurality of users;
The above limitation describe a series of steps to organize a list of items and perform settlement and then determine an alert based on weight exceeding limit. This is a business relationship, which falls into certain methods of organizing human activities. In addition, this is also similar to EPG’s collecting information (receiving steps), analyzing it (association and perform payment processing and determining total weight) and displaying the result (alert generation). Examiner also notes alternatively, payment processing can be its own abstract idea that falls into forming business relationship. In any case, the claim recites mental processes as well. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes the last remaining step, as explained above, need not be performed and therefore is not part of the scope being analyzed here. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Step 2A prong 2
The only additional element in claim 19 (noting the last limitation being outside the scope of claim 19) is a computer configured to perform the abstract idea. Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, this is nothing more than mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, as well as being generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, whether viewed initially or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer component. Therefore, they still wouldn’t provide significantly more based on the same step 2A prong 2 analysis that’s still applicable in step 2B. Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible.
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kartoun (US 20200401994) in view of Takizawa (US 20210109551).
As per claim 19, Kartoun discloses an order processing method executed by a computer configured to receive a collective order for a plurality of users regarding one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, the order processing method comprising:
Receiving information identifying the plurality of users for the collective order (see at least Kartoun, 0023, user A and a neighbor of user A is identified, thus identifying 2 users);
Receiving selection information corresponding to the one or more items (see at least Kartoun, 0023, both user A and neighbor A approves unifying items in the same package);
Associating, based on the selection information, one or more items with one or more of the plurality of users, and performing payment processing for each user in accordance with the items associated with the user (see at least Kartoun, 0023 and 0030, noting user can be in the process of making purchase and Kartoun’s system can bill person for their orders. Examiner notes orders are associating items with users);
Kartoun does not but Takizawa teaches based on the total weight not exceeding the per-delivery weight, controlling the movable body to deliver the one or more items (Fig. 3 and 4, see also 0055-0056, relationship between current item in cart is displayed in Fig. 3, item 44, which shows below an upper limit value. Order is then sent to administrator using GUI shown in Fig. 4 to start delivery using drone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Kartoun’s displaying of total weight within an upper limit with Kartoun’s order consolidation delivery system for the purpose of visually showing users of their associated order weight.
As per alert generation step, since Takizawa shows that it is not required for total weight to exceed a per delivery weight, it is not required to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Please Note:
Examiner contacted Applicant’s attorney Derek True a few days prior to major weather event in the DC region in an attempt to enter an examiner’s amendment for claim 19. However, no response was received. It may be due to scheduling issue from unforeseeable weather event or technical difficulties. Applicant is welcome to contact examiner via email to schedule an interview in the future to reduce the possibility of technical difficulties of voice mail. However, please consult MPEP 502.03 regarding limitation surrounding internet communication.
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628