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 October 5, 2025 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, and 5, and the addition of claims 6-10.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites a "a control unit configured to control the delivery robot to prevent the delivery robot from delivering the package in response to a determination that the receiver is present based on the captured data from the sensor." Applicant respectfully submits that the recited claim language is directed to patent eligible subject matter, based on “an improvement to the technology of the delivery robot by reducing a risk of error in the delivery robot by avoiding contact with the receiver,” [0028]. The Examiner suggests further amending claims 1 and 5 to include this type of language in those independent claims. The Examiner rejects the argument that the claims amended on Oct 5, 2025, as currently written, are integrated into a practical application.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant makes a compelling argument for anticipation based on 35 U.S.C. § 102. Examiner notes these arguments and presents additional art based on the amendments in support of rejection under U.S.C. § 103, along with some additional observations and ideas. New claim 6 seems to suggest that after the sensor of claim 1 determines whether the receiver is present, the delivery robot is controlled in accordance with the delivery schedule. Given the close similarities between claims 1, 6, and 7, these might be combined in a future amended claim 1. Similarly, claims 8 (system) and 9 (method) appear to be the functionality that delivers the improvement to the technology previously mentioned under § 101, and could supplement both claims 1 and 5. The ‘addition of reducing a risk of error in the delivery robot (delivery sequence) by avoiding contact with the receiver by pre-emptively separating the receiver and the delivery vehicle (locking the door)’ is a concept not seen while searching prior art.
Examiner finds the arguments for reconsideration based on current wording to be not compelling and the request to withdraw the rejections of the prior art claims based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 is denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-10 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 1-10 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-10 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 delivering a package to a storage place when the user who purchased the package is absent.
Claim 5 discloses a delivery method to deliver a package to a storage place, the delivery method comprising:
predicting a time during which a receiver of the package is absent; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
setting a schedule so that delivery of the package to the storage place occurs during the time when the receiver is absent; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
determining whether the receiver is present based on sensor data (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
preventing delivering the package in response to a determination that the receiver is present. (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to set a schedule so the package is delivered when another user, not the receiver is in the room, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 2), to deliver the package in an order starting with a package for a receiver predicted to be absent (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 3), wherein user information about a schedule of the receiver is acquired, and the time during which the receiver is absent is predicted based on the user information, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 4), controlling the robot to deliver the package according to schedule when the receiver is not present, (mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6), setting the delivery schedule to prevent delivering the package during a time when the receiver is present, (mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7), and controlling a door to be locked during delivery, (mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 8).
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on mitigating risk, following rules or instructions; and performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 1, 9, 10 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 2-8.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-10 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-10 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a delivery robot, a storage place, a sensor, a prediction unit, a scheduling unit, a control unit, a door of the storage place, 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 1-10 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-10 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 1-10 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.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Kilzer, (US
20190095862 A1), hereafter Kilzer, “Logistics Centers Supporting Final Mile Logistics / Package Delivery Process and Apparatus for Handling Online Commerce Packages Via Autonomous Mobility Enabled By Advanced Technology,” in view of Park, (US 20200406459 A1), hereafter Park, “Robot System and Control Method Thereof, ” in further view of Kanata, (US 20220147921 A1), hereafter Kanata, “Delivery Support Device, Delivery System, and Delivery Support Method.”
Regarding claim 1, A delivery system comprising:
a delivery robot configured to deliver a package to a storage place; Kilzer teaches, (designed to move packages that have been selected for autonomous vehicle delivery from storage locations to route autonomous vehicles' loading stations where the packages are loaded into the route autonomous vehicle, [0115], and to move packages from the induction location to storage locations, between storage locations and between a storage location and disbursement windows, from disbursement windows to induction station and storage locations, [0116]),
in accordance with a delivery schedule; Kilzer does not teach, Park teaches, (receive, from the first server 100, information regarding the first robot 200, such as information indicating that the delivery goods the client has ordered have been shipped, detailed description of the delivery goods, detailed description of the first robot 200, and a detailed shipping schedule, [0051]),
a sensor configured to capture data regarding whether a receiver of the package is present; (the first robot 200 may search a surrounding area of the delivery destination to check for the presence of a person, [0068], the recognition result is a result of the second server 400 determining, based on the transmitted voice information and image information of a person, who the person is, [0076], the client may authenticate opening of a door lock and select a delivery option that allows the second robot 300 to open the door lock and enter the home to deliver the delivery goods to the client, Park, [0092]),
Kilzer and Park are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the of automated package delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robotic package delivery methods of Kilzer with the delivery procedures of Park so that safe delivery of delivery goods may be achieved, [0024].
a prediction unit configured to predict a time during which a receiver of the package is absent; Kilzer teaches, (the customer can permit the app to monitor their physical location through their phone's GPS. This data will predict their arrival time at the invention facility, [0122]), and
a scheduling unit configured to set the delivery schedule so that the delivery robot delivers the package to the storage place during the time when the receiver is absent. Kilzer does not teach, Kanata teaches, (a delivery acceptance availability determination section configured to acquire a delivery acceptance availability status for a reception destination and determine whether or not it will be possible to hand over the package for delivery based on the delivery acceptance availability status; [0122]), and
a control unit configured to control the delivery robot to prevent the delivery robot from delivering the package in response to a determination that the receiver is present based on the captured data from the sensor, (a resetting section configured to eliminate the reception destination from the delivery route and reset the delivery route in cases in which the delivery acceptance availability determination section has determined that it will not be possible to hand over the package for delivery, [0122]),
Kilzer and Kanata are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the of automated package delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robotic package delivery methods of Kilzer with the drop box and rescheduling techniques of Kanata, to enable the time required for delivery arrival to be reduced, Kanata [0081].
Claim 5, 7, and 10 are rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 1. The absence of hardware and software elements does not change the reason for rejections for rejecting claim 5 under 35 U. S. C. § 103 or the referenced prior art. Kilzer teaches, teaches a method and apparatus of facilitating the delivery of a package to a customer, [0072].
Regarding claim 2, The delivery system according to claim 1, wherein the scheduling unit sets a schedule so that the package is delivered when another user other than the receiver is in a room corresponding to the storage place, Kilzer teaches, (the customer can permit the app to monitor their physical location through their phone's GPS. This data will predict their arrival time at the invention facility, [0122], and the invention will cause the robot to move their package(s) adjacent the disbursement window (Hot zones) prior to their arrival reducing the time taken to retrieve and deliver their package(s), [0122]).
Regarding claim 3, The delivery system according to claim 1, wherein the delivery robot comprises a storage part configured so that a plurality of packages are stored therein, Kilzer does not teach, Kanata teaches, (For example, the package sizes are organized based on combined width direction, depth direction, and height direction dimensions of each package. The package sizes are classified into predetermined size classes according to the combined dimensions, and the appropriate size class is stored together with a package identification number in the storage 26 of the delivery support device 12 or on a server when undertaking delivery of a package, [0036] and FIG. 1).
the storage place is located in each of houses, (the delivery acceptance availability determination section 42 may acquire availability information for a drop-off box installed at the receiving destination, [0084]), and the scheduling unit schedules delivery of the packages, (At step S108, the delivery center 11 notifies the mobile terminal 16 of the recipient of the scheduled delivery arrival time, [0056]), in an order starting from the package of the receiver whom it has been predicted will be absent. (At step S118, the delivery center 11 resets the delivery route. Specifically, the delivery center 11utilizes the functionality of the resetting section 44 in order to eliminate from the delivery route the receiving destination for which an unavailable-to-accept-delivery notification has been received at stepS112, and reset the delivery route so as to visit the receiving destinations of the remaining as-yet undelivered packages, before returning to the delivery center 11, Kanata, [0060]),
Kilzer and Kanata are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the of automated package delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robotic package delivery methods of Kilzer with the drop box and rescheduling techniques of Kanata, to enable the time required for delivery arrival to be reduced, Kanata [0081].
Regarding claim 4, The delivery system according to claim 1, wherein user information
about a schedule of the receiver is acquired, and the time during which the receiver is absent is predicted based on the user information, Kilzer does not teach, Kanata teaches, (At step S112, a unavailable-to-accept-delivery signal is transmitted from the mobile terminal 16to the delivery center 11. In other words, at step S112, the delivery center 11 utilizes the functionality of the delivery acceptance availability reception section 40 in order to receive the unavailable-to-accept-delivery communication from the mobile terminal 16, [0058]), At step S114, the delivery center 11 queries a delivery status of the delivery vehicle 14, and at step S116, the delivery center 11 receives a delivery status notification from the delivery vehicle 14.Note that the delivery status is a status including a progress status for the delivery route set at stepS106. In particular, the delivery center 11 acquires information regarding as-yet undelivered packages from the delivery vehicle 14. [0059], At step S118, the delivery center 11 resets the delivery route. Specifically, the delivery center 11utilizes the functionality of the resetting section 44 in order to eliminate from the delivery route the receiving destination for which an unavailable-to-accept-delivery notification has been received at stepS112, and reset the delivery route so as to visit the receiving destinations of the remaining as-yet undelivered packages, before returning to the delivery center 11. [0060]
Kilzer and Kanata are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the of automated package delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robotic package delivery methods of Kilzer with the user scheduling information and rescheduling techniques of Kanata, to enable the time required for delivery arrival to be reduced, Kanata [0081].
Regarding claim 8, The delivery system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control a door of the storage place accessible by the receiver to be locked during delivery of the package by the delivery robot. Kilzer teaches, Once the disbursement window apparatus detects the presence of the package it closes an internal door assuring the customer cannot reach into the robotics operating zone, [0117]).
Claim 9 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those of claim 8. The absence of hardware and software elements does not change the reason for rejections under 35 U. S. C. § 103 or the referenced prior art. Kilzer teaches a method and apparatus of facilitating the delivery of a package to a customer, [0072].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Kilzer, (US 20190095862
A1), hereafter Kilzer, “Logistics Centers Supporting Final Mile Logistics / Package Delivery Process and Apparatus for Handling Online Commerce Packages Via Autonomous Mobility Enabled By Advanced Technology,” in view of Park, (US 20200406459 A1), hereafter Park, “Robot System and Control Method Thereof, ” in further view of Kanata, (US 20220147921 A1), hereafter Kanata, “Delivery Support Device, Delivery System, and Delivery Support Method,” and in further view of Kim, (US 20230162126 A1), hereafter Kim, “Method and System for Managing Delivery Item in Absence of Recipient.”
Regarding claim 6, The delivery system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the delivery robot to deliver the package in accordance with the delivery schedule in response to the receiver not being present. Kilzer does not teach, Kim teaches, (A method for managing a delivery item in the absence of a recipient invention includes the operations in which a delivery item management system determines whether or not an unloading request has been made by a client terminal with respect to a delivery robot which has arrived at a place of delivery; and the delivery item management system enables the delivery robot to automatically unload a delivery item at the place of delivery, on the basis of the determination result, [Abstract]).
Kilzer and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the of automated package delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robotic package delivery methods of Kilzer with the delivery processes of Kim to enable the delivery robot to automatically perform stable unloading of the delivery item on a correct place as the conventional delivery man does even in the absence of the recipient, [0008].
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.
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.
11. 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