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 application filed on 10/07/2025. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 17-20 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that claimed invention is a problem that specifically arise from complexity of managing real-time computerized distribution network where multiple (listed 3 constraints) must be simultaneously evaluated. Examiner respectfully disagree.
Here, specification list a problem of delay being incurred because operation time of the delivery vehicle before certain amount of load is accumulated. Considering a few extra factors (rules) doesn’t appear to be complex, especially considering the scope of claim doesn’t require a large number of data point that needs to be considered. Making plans for vehicle load and attempting to optimize it based on factors is a problem that long exist before computer. Therefore, the claimed invention is fundamentally different from DDR’s problem that only uniquely exist in internet traffic. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding art rejection, the arguments is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 17-20 are objected because target time is further clarified to be the reception time slot with the newly amended limitation but “target time” is still being used. This appears to be a typographical error.
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, 4-8, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, examiner believes all limitation described in the body recites an abstract idea. These steps describes a series of step to perform vehicle assignment, which is a business relationship. This falls into certain methods of organizing human activities. Further, these limitations also fall into mental processes as they all involve making judgement and observation. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
Claim 1 includes the information processing device, which serve as the intended operating environment for the assignment process. This is merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as well as mere instruction to implement the abstract ideas on this device, which is a generic computer component discussed in high generality. Examiner notes while claim includes language related to vehicle and load, they’re just names of data (see Fig. 2-3 for example) that does not actually require the physical object; therefore, the vehicle and loads are not additional elements. However, examiner notes that even if they’re considered as actual physical objects, they can still similarly analyzed as the device to be generally linking the abstract idea to particular field of use. Even if these device, vehicle and load are being analyzed in a hypothetical ordered combination, they’re still nothing more than merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, which analysis still applies in step 2B, the additional element(s), whether individually or as an ordered hypothetical combination, are nothing more than merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not provide significantly more to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
The dependent claims merely further limit the abstract idea by introducing additional rules to follow. Therefore, they still recite the same abstract idea. Theses claims either contains no further additional element or that the same additional element is being generally linked to another part of the recited abstract idea to a generic computer. The step 2A prong 2 and step 2B analysis would remain substantially similar. Therefore, these claims are still ineligible
Claims 8, 11-15, 17-20 can be similarly analyzed as claims 1, 4-7 and would be rejected over similar rationale set forth above.
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) 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20170046658) in view of Ripert (US 20200410864).
As per claim 1, Jones discloses a method executed by an information processing device to assign to a target vehicle, before the target vehicle is loaded with a load (see 0098, different resource (driver) found to service the next leg shipment, meaning shipment hasn’t loaded onto target vehicle (the one incurring delay)), a task of delivering loads stored in a warehouse and addressed to a target consignee to the target consignee, the method comprising executing an assignment process including:
determining whether a load amount of the loads is equal to or more than a reference amount (see at least Jones Fig. 7 and 0208, if full load, a TSP is found in 722. See 0007 where TSP can be an independent driver);
when the load amount is determined to be equal to or more than the reference amount, assigning the task to the target vehicle (see at least Jones Fig. 7 and 0208, if full load, a TSP is found in 722. See 0007 where TSP can be an independent driver);
when the target time is determined to be within the reference time, assigning the task to the target vehicle (see at least Jones, 0098, different resources is used whenever a delay would be greater than acceptable amount. Therefore, load would stay assigned if delay is within parameter); and
when the target time is determined not to be within the reference time, withholding assignment of the task to the target vehicle (see at least Jones, 0098, different resources is used whenever a delay would be greater than acceptable amount).
Wherein
While Jones describes a target time related to delay of shipment, which means an predicted end time of the task and operation end time, it does not explicitly disclose such relationship is being within a reference time where the reference time is a reception time slot.
Ripert, however teaches calculating delay or determining whether a vehicle can be assigned to the task is based on whether a target time is within a reference time (see at least Ripert, 0032-0033, a time to pick item is determined based on delivery window and delivery agent is picked based on the window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Ripert’s consideration of task end time time with Jones’ TSP selection for the purpose of ensuring the TSP is feasible to take on the load.
As per claim 6, Jones further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
the assignment process further includes selecting one of a plurality of delivery vehicles as the target vehicle, and when assignment of the task to the target vehicle is withheld, selecting from the plurality of delivery vehicles a delivery vehicle with a highest vehicle rank next to the target vehicle as a new target vehicle (see at least Jones, 0098, different resources is used whenever a delay would be greater than acceptable amount. See also 0088-0092, shipper can select priority to how to select TSP (i.e., ranking)); and
the assignment process further includes executing the assignment process for the new target vehicle (see at least Jones, 0098, different resources is used whenever a delay would be greater than acceptable amount.).
As per claim 7, Jones discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
the assignment process further includes selecting one of a plurality of consignees as the target consignee, and when assignment of the task to the target vehicle is withheld (see Fig. 7, a customer requests transportation),
the assignment process further includes exeucting the assignment process (see Fig. 7)
Jones discloses assignment process being performed for each load and that the focus is to find carrier for the load (0183). Therefore, Jones simply does not explicitly disclose selecting the next largest load after current selection. Yet all loads are processed. There is a finite number of loads to be selected and at least one of these loads must be the largest load remaining. One ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention would have found it being “obvious to try” to rank the loads based on its capacity and pick the next largest next. After all, a larger LTL shipment would generate less deadhead miles for the accepting driver, which is preferred. Further a larger shipment would also mean a bigger customer, which makes the economics of scales discussed by Jones a relevant factor to consider when prioritizing loads.
Claims 7-8, 13-15, 19-20 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 1, 6-7 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20170046658) in view of Ripert (US 20200410864), further in view of Bharadwaj (US 20080312991).
As per claim 4, Jones disclose the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the assignment process further includes, when the load amount is determined to be less than the reference amount, determining whether the load amount is equal to or more than a minimum loading capacity of the target vehicle; and
when the load amount is determined to be equal to or more than the minimum loading capacity, assignment process includes determining whether the target time is within the reference time.
Jones, however, discloses determining the load amount being less than reference amount, which is an LTL load, a series of determination steps can be performed (Fig. 7). Jones, although suggesting a minimum load capacity (0023, 0026, where LTL is described as larger shipment and smaller load carriers are characterized as alternatives to LTL), nevertheless does not explicitly disclose determining whether the load amount is equal to or more than a minimum loading capacity of the target vehicle.
Bharadwaj, however, teaches that as known in the art, LTL includes a minimum capacity (0040, LTL can be between 100 and 15000 lb)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Bharadwaj’s industrial standard of LTL load having minimum load amount with Jones’ LTL consolidation service for the purpose of ensuring a minimum quality level of participating customers.
Regarding target time and reference time, please see rejection for claim 1.
As per claim 5, Jones further discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the assignment process further includes, when the load amount is determined to be less than the minimum loading capacity, withholding assignment of the task to the target vehicle (see at least Jones, Fig. 7, 713, where determination is made on whether load being LTL or Full load. See 0026, smaller load are processed by gooseneck transportation. Therefore, smaller load as those below 100 lb would not go through steps 731 and beyond).
Claims 11-12, 17-18 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 4-5 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
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