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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed September 18, 2025. Claims 1, 9 and 13-14 were amended, claim 2-8, 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 final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 18, 2025 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Daire does not teach “automatically extract a plurality of candidate packages to be delivered cooperatively with the first package from among packages of another shipper by using the acquired deliver condition.” Examiner states that Daire teaches that the service provider extracts information for multiple orders (i.e. previously placed orders) and combines the orders to be delivered by a courier. (col 10 lines 3-10 “The service provider can receive the orders from the first buyer and the second buyer via the service-computing device, and can process the orders. The service provider can subsequently combine the orders for nearby buyers and/or nearby merchants, and send the orders to the respective merchants. Additionally, the service provider can send the order information to a single courier to increase the logistical efficiency of the deliveries.”) (col 11 lines 41-59 “In various examples, a second buyer may indicate an interest in the represented merchant, Mex-I-Can. The indication of interest can be a swipe to “like” 412 or other way to indicate a preference, and/or a selection of an order now button 414. Based on an indication of interest from the second buyer, the service provider can surface an incentive 416 (e.g., a reduced delivery fee, a discount for an item, a discount on the order, etc.) to order an item from the represented merchant In some examples, the same or a similar incentive 416 can be provided to the first buyer via the first GUI 302 to encourage placing an order with the merchant 108. The service provider can receive an order from the second buyer via the second GUI 404, and can subsequently combine the second order with the first order placed by the first buyer. The service provider can process the orders, apply incentives, and send the orders to respective merchants. Additionally, the service provider can send the order information to a single courier to increase the logistical efficiency of the deliveries.”)
Applicant argues that Daire in view of Whitehouse do not teach “automatically transmit 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”. Examiner states that Daire teaches that after the order is placed and a delivery is initiated, the system combines transactions together into a single delivery in order to be sent to a courier (col 12-13 lines 62-18 “(68) At 514, the service-computing device receives a first order from a first consumer device and a second order from a second consumer device and applies the respective incentives to the respective orders. In examples in which the first transaction and the second transaction are with a same merchant, the transactions may be combined and sent to the merchant substantially simultaneously. In examples in which the first transaction and the second transactions are with different merchants, each transaction can be sent to the respective merchant for further processing. At 516, the service-computing device initiates a delivery of a first good to a first consumer and a second good to a second consumer. The service-computing device can combine the first and the second transactions into a single delivery order to send to a courier. The service-computing device can send the delivery order to the courier via a courier device connected to the service-computing device via a network connection. The delivery order can include details regarding each transaction to specify that the first good is to be delivered to the first consumer and the second good to the second consumer. Though described as merely a first transaction and a second transaction, the service-computing device can combine a plurality of transactions and send the data to a single courier for delivery.”) Daire does not teach that the candidate packages to be combined for delivery is displayed to the courier in a selectable way. However, Whitehouse teaches that the shipper is able to select a threshold number of items to be consolidated for delivery. (col 12-13 lines 56-28 “ At block 202 of the illustrated embodiment, logic of consolidation management server system 160 operates to analyze the item shipment information for matching appropriate shipping service providers, shipping services, routes, etc. for the shipments. In operation according to embodiments, the analysis determines if there are sufficient volumes of items to be shipped to provide shipment consolidation. For example, a shipper may establish a threshold item number preference (e.g., a minimum number of items the shipper is willing to provide special handling for shipping consolidation, a number of items at which the shipper perceives a benefit from shipping consolidation, a number of items required for shipping consolidation by one or more shipping service providers used by the shipper, etc.) at or above which the shipper wishes shipping consolidation management system 100A to offer shipping consolidation, if otherwise appropriate. Such a threshold number of items may, for example, be selected by a shipper to be 20, 25, 30, etc. items. Additionally or alternatively, an administrator or operator of consolidation management server system 160 may establish a threshold item number (e.g., a number of items at which the shipper receives a cost benefit from shipping consolidation, a number of items required for shipping consolidation by one or more shipping service providers, etc.) at or above which logic of consolidation management system 100A performs analysis regarding the availability and/or appropriateness of shipping consolidation. Such a threshold number of items may, for example, be selected by a shipper to be 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, etc. items. It should be appreciated that the threshold number of items for shipment consolidation established by individual shippers and an operator or administrator of consolidation management server system 160 may be different (e.g., where consolidation of items from a plurality of shippers is provided for, the item number threshold implemented by consolidation management server system 160 may be greater than the item number threshold implemented by individual shippers and nevertheless groups of items may be established meeting the requisite thresholds”).
. Applicant argues that Daire in view of Whitehouse do not teach a user-centric selection process where the first shipper actively selects one of the plurality of candidate packages as a second package for cooperative delivery. However, examiner states that the claim does not recite who is selecting the package for consolidation. The claim explicitly recites “receive a selection of the one of the plurality of candidate packages”. Therefore, the selection can be made by the server, the shipper, the courier or the user. Whitehouse teaches in col 12-13 lines 56-28 and col 16-17 lines 54-8 that the server sorts shipments and selects packages for consolidation. Therefore, Diare in view of Whitehouse teach all the limitations of claim 1.
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).
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.
As to claim 2, Daire in view of Whitehouse 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; and perform processing for cooperatively delivering the first package and the second package when approval for the request is acquired. (col 9-10 lines 51-10)
As to claim 3, Daire in view of Whitehouse 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 teach all the limitations of claims 15, 17 and 19 as discussed above.
Daire in view of Whitehouse 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 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
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.
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