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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed February 25, 2026. Claims 1-2 and 13-14 were amended, claim 3-10 and 15-20 were left as previously presented and claims 11-12 are canceled. Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 26, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-20 is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how does the approval for the request is received from the first shipper after the approval is acquired by the second shipper.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daire et al. referred herein as Daire (U.S. Patent No. 9,811,838) in view of Whitehouse et al. referred herein as Whitehouse (U.S. Patent No. 10,824,982), further in view of Wagner et al. referred herein as Wagner (U.S. Patent No. 11,379,788).
As to claims 1, 13 and 14, Daire teaches an apparatus a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
acquiring a delivery condition of a first package from a first shipper; (col 2 lines 22-52)
automatically extracting a plurality of candidate packages to be delivered cooperatively with the first package, from among packages of another shipper, by using the acquired delivery condition; (col 2 lines 22-52, col 10 lines 3-10 and col 11 line 41-49)
automatically transmitting information to a terminal apparatus of the first shipper for causing the terminal apparatus to display the plurality of candidate packages in a selectable way. (col 9-10 lines 51-2, col 12-13 lines 62-18 and col 17 lines 35-54 and fig.3, 7)
Daire does not explicitly teach that the shipping options are displayed in a selectable way.
However, Whitehouse teaches that the shipping options are provided to the shipper. (col 12-13 lines 56-28)
Daire does not teach:
receive a selection of one of the plurality of candidate packages as a second package for cooperative delivering with the first package, from the terminal apparatus.
However, Whitehouse teaches:
receive a selection of one of the plurality of candidate packages as a second package for cooperative delivering with the first package, from the terminal apparatus. (col 12-13 lines 56-28 and col 16-17 lines 54-8)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to allow the shipper to select packages in Daire as taught by Whitehouse. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Whitehouse that doing so would reduce cost of shipping.
Daire and Whitehouse do not teach:
receive a selection of one of the plurality of candidate packages as a second package for cooperative delivery with the first package, from the terminal apparatus operated by the first shipper.
However, Wagner further teaches:
receive a selection of one of the plurality of candidate packages as a second package for cooperative delivery with the first package, from the terminal apparatus operated by the first shipper. ( col 17 lines 32-40 show that the first carrier recommends moving shipments with a second carrier)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to allow the first shipper to consolidate with the second shipper in Daire in view of Whitehouse as taught by Wagner. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Wagner that doing so would reduce the total cost of shipping.
As to claim 2, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: notify, of a request for cooperative delivery, a shipper of the second package; acquire a response from the second shipper to the request notified, the response including whether the second shipper approves cooperative delivery of the first package and the second package; transmit information for causing a content of the response acquired to be displayed, to the terminal apparatus of the first shipper; and perform processing for cooperatively delivering the first package and the second package when approval for the request is acquired from the terminal apparatus of the first shipper. (col 9-10 lines 51-10)
As to claim 3, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further
Daire does not explicitly teach that the shipping options are displayed in a selectable way.
However, Whitehouse teaches that the shipping options are provided to the shipper (col 12-13 lines 56-28 and col 16-17 lines 54-8)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to allow the shipper to select packages in Daire as taught by Whitehouse. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Whitehouse that doing so would reduce cost of shipping.
As to claim 4, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
Wherein the acquired delivery condition includes fluctuation information indicating a periodic fluctuation in a shipping amount of the first package. (col 5 lines 15-30 and col 11 lines 9-21)
As to claim 5, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the acquired delivery condition includes a departure area relating to an area of loading the first package, and an arrival area relating to an area of unloading the first package. (col 12 lines 13-32)
As to claim 6, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the acquired delivery condition further includes departure time information relating to a scheduled time of loading the first package, and arrival time information relating to a scheduled time of unloading the first package. (col 12 line 13-32)
As to claim 7, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
Wherein the acquired delivery condition further includes information indicating a changeable time period for one or both of the departure time information and the arrival time information. (fig. 3 and col 13-14 lines 54-7)
As to claim 8, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
Wherein the departure area and the arrival area include an area of each previously determined hierarchical layer with a hierarchical structure. (col 12 lines 13-32)
As to claim 9, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein, when at least one of an area the hierarchical layer that is highest in the hierarchical structure included in the departure area and an area of the hierarchical layer that is highest in the hierarchical structure included in the arrival area is common to the first package and a package of another shipper, the package of another shipper is extracted as the one of the plurality of candidate packages. (col 12 lines 13-32)
As to claim 10, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the transmitted information includes information for displaying a degree at which a previously determined reduction item can be reduced in a case where the first package and each of the plurality of candidate packages are cooperatively delivered as compared to in a case where the first package is separately delivered from each of the plurality of candidate packages. (fig. 3)
As to claims 15, 17 and 19, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claims 3, 13 and 14 as discussed above.
Daire further teaches:
wherein the fitting degrees indicate degrees of fitting between the acquired delivery condition and the delivery conditions of the plurality candidate packages. (col 12 lines 13-32)
Claims 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daire et al. referred herein as Daire (U.S. Patent No. 9,811,838) in view of Whitehouse et al. referred herein as Whitehouse (U.S. Patent No. 10,824,982), further in view of Wagner et al. referred herein as Wagner (U.S. Patent No. 11,379,788), further in view of Asay et al. referred herein as Asay (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325893).
As to claims 16, 18 and 20, Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner teach all the limitations of claims 15, 17 and 19 as discussed above.
Daire, Whitehouse and Wagner do not teach:
the transmitted information is for displaying the plurality of candidate packages arranged in descending order of the fitting degrees.
However, Asay teaches:
the transmitted information is for displaying the plurality of candidate packages arranged in descending order of the fitting degrees. (para 90)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to display packages in descending order in Daire in view of Whitehouse, further in view of Wagner as taught by Asay. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that ranking the packages in lists would allow better organization of package details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights