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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 08/25/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4 and 12, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the objection to claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, and 13 have been fully considered and are generally persuasive. Examiner agrees that the incorporation of the new limitations into claim 1 (from claim 7 and newly introduced to the claim set) result in the amended claim 1 being patentably distinct over previous reference U.S. Patent No. 12,045,759. Claims 3, 4, and 13 are therefore patentably distinct as well. The non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-13 have been maintained.
Applicant argues that the amended claim language “more clearly recites elements that, when considered in combination, are not directed to an abstract idea” and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The added limitations of the delivery request further including return request information and the selection of the deliverer based on fourth location information of the storage device to be a return location. In combination with the rest of claim 1, the new limitations serve to narrow the abstract idea by requiring another piece of information in the delivery request and another criterion on which to base the selection of the deliverer to service the request. Therefore, while the commercial interaction of amended claim 1 is narrower than the commercial interaction of previous claim 1, the amended claims do not introduce any new additional elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1, 3, and 13 as anticipated by Nozawa have been fully considered and are generally persuasive. Examiner agree that Nozawa does not explicitly teach that the deliverer is selected further based on location information of a storage device as a return destination as is recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, while Nozawa teaches that the deliverer is selected from deliverer candidates registered in advance based on third location information of the deliverer candidates and at least one of the first location information of the at least one storage device and the second location information of the delivery destination, Nozawa does not teach the selection being based on the return storage location as well. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1, 3, and 13 have been withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that the amended claims 1, 3, and 13 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nozawa and Kieboom (U.S. Patent No. 11,587,022; hereafter known as Kieboom) as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments as shown below. Kieboom remedies the deficiencies of Nozawa with respect to claim 1, and Examiner notes that the limitation of selecting the deliverer based on the fourth location of the return location storage device was not previously presented in claim 7 and is new to the claim set.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17 and 19-26, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2, 5-9, and 11-12 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, regarding each of these claims Applicant argues that the secondary reference used to teach limitations in a particular dependent claim does not remedy Nozawa’s failure to teach further selecting the deliverer based on the storage location to be used as a return location. However, as will be shown in greater detail below, Kieboom remedies the deficiency of Nozawa instead of any of the argued references. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding each of these claims are moot. Claims 2, 5-9, and 11-12 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as shown below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 08/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered but are either unpersuasive or moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim 4 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as shown below.
First, Applicant argues that the Iwata reference fails to remedy the deficiency of Nozawa discussed in claim 1. However, as discussed above, Kieboom is used to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, this argument is moot for similar reasons as discussed above regarding claims 2, 5-9, and 11-12.
Second, Applicant further argues that “Iwata is also completely silent regarding any deliverer that is further selected based on a fifth location information of a restaurant” and that Nozawa allegedly teaches away from a device to select a deliverer further based on a location information of a restaurant. Examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments.
Regarding the argument that Iwata is completely silent regarding any deliverer selected based on location information of a restaurant, Iwata [0096] recites "The delivery system A is configured such that the delivery can be performed by selecting a delivery person Pd satisfying a predetermined condition from a plurality of delivery persons Pd who can individually perform the delivery using the vehicle 7...select a delivery person Pd who is present at a position where efficient delivery can be performed. By performing such selection, more rapid pickup and delivery can be performed". By considering deliverer locations that can perform the efficient pickup up and delivery of the orders from restaurants (see the delivery instructions with restaurant location information and directions in [0064]), Iwata is teaching the selection of deliverers whose locations relative to the restaurant locations allow for quicker pickup of food deliveries, which reads on the selection of the deliverer further based on fifth location information of a restaurant.
Regarding the argument that Nozawa allegedly teaches away from the device selecting a deliverer because the deliverer has an option to accept or decline the delivery instructions is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments seem to be trying to equate the deliverer’s ability to decline a request with the removal of all driver selection ability from the device. Nozawa explicitly teaches the information processing device searching the delivery person database and selecting at least one delivery candidate in step S151. The information processing device is thus making the decision to select a particular/several particular candidates based on the factors outlined in Nozawa. The delivery inquiry is sent by the information processing device then sends the delivery request to the selected delivery candidates in S154. Thus, Nozawa explicitly teaches the information processing device selecting particular delivery candidates to send particular delivery requests to. Therefore, even though the delivery candidate may subsequently decline the delivery request in Nozawa, the decision to select them to receive the request has been made by the information processing device. The delivery candidates do not make a decision to receive delivery information on particular deliveries or search all pending deliveries and choose their preferred option. The deliverers in Nozawa Fig. 6 only receive the delivery requests that the device decides to send them. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Nozawa teaches away from the device selecting the deliverers is unpersuasive, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine Nozawa, Kieboom, and Iwata as discussed below. Claim 4 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “A delivery management device” in claim 1.
Corresponding structure for performing the transmitting is found in at least [0018]-[0020] and the algorithm for the selecting is found at least in [0064]-[0067], [0083]-[0088].
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite selecting a deliverer to deliver a battery from a storage location to a delivery destination.
As an initial matter, claims 1-9 and 11-13 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “selecting a deliverer based on delivery request information of a battery including location information of a delivery destination, and for transmitting delivery instruction information to the deliverer”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a delivery management device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “wherein the delivery instruction information includes first location information of at least one storage device storing a battery that can be delivered to the delivery destination and second location information being the location information of the delivery destination, the deliverer is selected from deliverer candidates registered in advance based on third location information of the deliverer candidates and at least one of the first location information of the at least one storage device and the second location information of the delivery destination, the delivery request information further includes return request information of a used battery, and the deliverer is selected further based on fourth location information of at least one storage device as a return destination to which the used battery can be returned”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of selecting a deliverer to deliver a battery from a storage location to a delivery destination which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Selecting a deliverer based on delivery request information of a battery including location information of a delivery destination, and for transmitting delivery instruction information to the deliverer, wherein the delivery instruction information includes first location information of at least one storage device storing a battery that can be delivered to the delivery destination and second location information being the location information of the delivery destination, the deliverer is selected from deliverer candidates registered in advance based on third location information of the deliverer candidates and at least one of the first location information of the at least one storage device and the second location information of the delivery destination, the delivery request information further includes return request information of a used battery, and the deliverer is selected further based on fourth location information of at least one storage device as a return destination to which the used battery can be returned all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a delivery management device. The recited additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a delivery management device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2020/203678, hereafter known as Nozawa. Examiner also notes that the publication date of 08/10/2020 is outside of the 1 year grace period from the 11/29/2021 effective filing date of the instant application) in view of Kieboom (U.S. Patent No. 11,587,022; hereafter known as Kieboom).
Regarding claim 1, Nozawa teaches:
A delivery management device for selecting a deliverer based on delivery request information of a battery including location information of a delivery destination, and for transmitting delivery instruction information to the deliverer (see Fig. 3A and [0025] for a delivery management device. See [0042] "the information processing device 2 receives the delivery request RQ from the communication terminal 3 in S11. In S12, the information processing device 2 selects one or more storage locations 300 from the storage location DB 223 based on the delivery location specified in the delivery request RQ" and [0044] and [0046] "The delivery candidate 200 can be selected based on the delivery location, the storage location 300 selected in S12, and the "area" information (FIG. 4B) of the delivery candidate 200" for the device selecting a delivery person for a request based on the delivery destination and transmitting a request to the delivery candidate. Finally, see [0015] "FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of the support system 1. The support system 1 is a system that manages the delivery service of the portable battery by the information processing device 2" for the device controlling the delivery of batteries)
wherein the delivery instruction information includes first location information of at least one storage device storing a battery that can be delivered to the delivery destination and second location information being the location information of the delivery destination (see Fig. 10A and [0051] "the information processing device 2 transmits a delivery inquiry to the communication terminal 4 of the delivery candidate 201 selected in S151. The communication terminal 4 receives the delivery inquiry (S211)...FIG. 10A shows a display example of the display unit 44. In the illustrated example, the delivery conditions and information on the storage location 300 of the battery 6 are displayed on the display unit 44. The delivery conditions include the delivery location and delivery time specified in the delivery request Race Queen. Further, in the illustrated example, two storage locations 300 are shown, and the number of charged batteries 6 in stock at each storage location 300 is also shown" for transmitting a delivery instruction to a deliverer including battery storage devices and the delivery destination location)
the deliverer is selected from deliverer candidates registered in advance based on third location information of the deliverer candidates and at least one of the first location information of the at least one storage device and the second location information of the delivery destination (see [0026] "The storage unit 22 stores various data in addition to the program executed by the processing unit 21. In the example of FIG. 3A, databases (DB) 221 to 223 are exemplified as the data stored in the storage unit 22...The DB 222 is a DB in which information on the delivery candidate 201 is registered, and the DB 222 may be referred to as a delivery person DB 222" and [0027] "In the present embodiment, it is assumed that both the delivery applicant and the delivery candidate are registered as members in advance in the present embodiment" and Fig. 4B for the delivery candidates being registered in advance. See [0045]-[0050], particularly "the information processing device 2 searches the delivery person DB 222 and selects one or a plurality of delivery candidates 200...The delivery candidate 200 can be selected based on the delivery location, the storage location 300 selected in S12, and the "area" information (FIG. 4B) of the delivery candidate 200...as another selection method for further narrowing down in combination with the "area" information, for example, the position of the storage location 300 selected in S12 and the current position of the delivery candidate 200" for the selection of the deliverer from the list of pre-registered deliverers being made based on the location of the deliverer and the locations of the storage device and destination. See Fig. 9B for a deliverer being within a certain distance from the delivery destination and within a certain distance from a storage device)
Nozawa further teaches in [0069] "The delivery request may be automatically transmitted to the information processing apparatus 2 based on the determination result of determining the necessity of the exchange. Alternatively, the in-vehicle terminal 3c may prompt the user 101c to replace the battery 6, and if the user 101c agrees, the delivery request may be transmitted to the information processing device 2" for a delivery request being a request for a battery to exchange with a current consumed battery. However, while Nozawa considers battery exchange/replacement, Nozawa does not explicitly teach the delivery request further includes a return request information of a used battery and the deliverer is selected further based on fourth location information of a storage location as a return destination to which the battery can be returned. Kieboom teaches:
the delivery request information further includes return request information of a used battery (see Col. 5 lines 6-11 “As shown in FIG. 2, when a customer initiates a return or exchange 202 through the retailer's system 104, the PRAE System 102 receives a notification 202 from the retailer 104 via a computer network that the consumer has initiated a return and provides the details and information related to the return and/or exchange” and Col. 5 lines 11-27 for the remaining exchange request information comprising a pickup location/address of the customer. In combination with Nozawa, the item to be exchanged is a battery and the user initiates the exchange of Nozawa [0069])
and the deliverer is selected further based on fourth location information of at least one storage device as a return destination to which the used battery can be returned (see claim 6 “the pickup agent is selected from a prospective pool of drivers based on that driver's proximity to the location of the product, distance to the drop-off location” for the pickup agent being selected based on their distance to a drop-off location. See Col. 8 lines 8-11 “After the driver has successfully picked up the product, the driver will then be prompted to deliver the product to a designated drop-off location 206” for the “drop-off location” of Kieboom being the location to which the product picked up from the customer is to be returned. In combination with Nozawa, the drop-off location for a to-be-returned battery is a storage location of Nozawa and deliverer is selected based on their distance to that return storage location in additional to the distance from the customer returning a battery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the exchange request and selection of drivers based on return destination of Kieboom into the system of Nozawa. As Kieboom states in Col. 2 lines 4-22 “Existing product return and/or exchange systems require consumers to ship or transport the unwanted product themselves and/or the third-party company requires the consumer or retailer to provide credit card information. Further, any damage caused to the product in shipping via a shipping service or postal service may be attributed to the consumer and triggers a time-consuming and costly process of either rejecting the return/exchange when the product is received by the retailer or potentially requiring the retailer to issue only a partial refund. This leads to confusion and lower consumer satisfaction. A need exists in the retail industry for improved systems and methods that addresses the deficiencies of the existing retail product return and exchange systems while continuing to allow consumers to return unwanted products. The advantages of an improved retail product return system may include one or more of the following: reducing the cost of processing items being returned to retailers”. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the need of users of Nozawa to get their used batteries back to a storage location to be charged after receiving the battery delivery of Nozawa. While conventional methods for returning products described by Kieboom above can be time consuming and have lower customer satisfaction, the teachings of a return request and driver selection based on distance to the drop-off storage location of Kieboom would allow users of Nozawa to dispose of/return their drained batteries in a less costly and more expedient way when compared to conventional means.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches:
wherein the storage device is selected from storage device candidates registered in advance based on location information of the storage device candidates (see [0026] "The DB 223 is a DB in which information on the storage location 300 is registered, and the DB 223 may be referred to as a storage location DB" for the storage device locations registered in advance and [0042] "the information processing device 2 selects one or more storage locations 300 from the storage location DB 223 based on the delivery location specified in the delivery request RQ. For example, a storage location 300 within a certain distance from the delivery location specified in the delivery request RQ with reference to "location" (FIG. 4C) is selected")
Regarding claim 7, Nozawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches:
the delivery instruction information includes (see [0026] "The DB 223 is a DB in which information on the storage location 300 is registered, and the DB 223 may be referred to as a storage location DB" for the storage device locations registered in advance and [0042] "the information processing device 2 selects one or more storage locations 300 from the storage location DB 223 based on the delivery location specified in the delivery request RQ. For example, a storage location 300 within a certain distance from the delivery location specified in the delivery request RQ with reference to "location" (FIG. 4C) is selected" for the storage device locations being selected from storage location device candidates registered in advance)
Nozawa further teaches in [0069] "The delivery request may be automatically transmitted to the information processing apparatus 2 based on the determination result of determining the necessity of the exchange. Alternatively, the in-vehicle terminal 3c may prompt the user 101c to replace the battery 6, and if the user 101c agrees, the delivery request may be transmitted to the information processing device 2" for a delivery request being a request for a battery to exchange with a current consumed battery. However, while Nozawa considers battery exchange/replacement, Nozawa does not explicitly teach the delivery request further includes a return request information of a used battery and the delivery information includes location information of a storage device as a return location to which the used battery can be returned and selected from storage device candidates. Kieboom teaches:
the delivery instruction information includes the fourth location information of the at least one storage device as the return destination, and the at least one storage device as the return destination is selected from storage device candidates registered in advance based on location information of the storage device candidates (see Col. 8 lines 8-20 “After the driver has successfully picked up the product, the driver will then be prompted to deliver the product to a designated drop-off location 206. FIG. 6 shows the process by which a driver (either an authorized PRAE System driver or a logistics partner driver) may use the PRAE System 102 to navigate the drop-off process 602. The system will identify all designated drop-off locations nearby 604… the system will pre-select the nearest drop-off location” for determining drop-off locations that have already been designated and selecting the nearest one. This drop-off location is provided as a prompt to the deliverer as the location to navigate to in order to drop-off the returned product. In combination with Nozawa, the drop-off locations are storage devices for the batteries)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the delivery instruction to the deliverer including the fourth location of the drop-off location for the returned product and selecting the drop-off location based on the location of the drop-off location of Kieboom into the system of Nozawa. As Kieboom states in Col. 2 lines 4-22 “Existing product return and/or exchange systems require consumers to ship or transport the unwanted product themselves and/or the third-party company requires the consumer or retailer to provide credit card information. Further, any damage caused to the product in shipping via a shipping service or postal service may be attributed to the consumer and triggers a time-consuming and costly process of either rejecting the return/exchange when the product is received by the retailer or potentially requiring the retailer to issue only a partial refund. This leads to confusion and lower consumer satisfaction. A need exists in the retail industry for improved systems and methods that addresses the deficiencies of the existing retail product return and exchange systems while continuing to allow consumers to return unwanted products. The advantages of an improved retail product return system may include one or more of the following: reducing the cost of processing items being returned to retailers”. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by selecting a drop-off location nearest to the deliverer as in Kieboom, the return process can be handled in a less costly (in time as well as fuel, etc.) manner than the conventional return processes.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches:
wherein the deliverer is selected based on information on a delivery apparatus used by each of the deliverer candidates for delivery (see [0045]-[0050], particularly "the information processing device 2 searches the delivery person DB 222 and selects one or a plurality of delivery candidates 200...The delivery candidate 200 can be selected based on the delivery location, the storage location 300 selected in S12, and the "area" information (FIG. 4B) of the delivery candidate 200...as another selection method for further narrowing down in combination with the "area" information, for example, the position of the storage location 300 selected in S12 and the current position of the delivery candidate 200" for the selection of the deliverer from the list of pre-registered deliverers being made based on the location of the deliverer. See [0030] "The "current position" is information indicating the current position of the delivery candidate 201, and the current position information transmitted from the communication terminal 4 is used" for the location used to select the deliverer being obtained from the communication terminal 4, which per [0019] are used by each of the deliverer candidates)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Kieboom and Takatsuka et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0253788, hereafter known as Takatsuka ‘788).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches a stock quantity for each battery storage station in [0033] that is provided to help the deliverer to decide on which battery storage location to visit in [0051]-[0052]. However, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom does not explicitly teach the delivery request including information on a delivery number of batteries and the storage device being selected based on a number of batteries in storage device candidate inventory and the delivery number of batteries. Takatsuka ‘788 teaches:
wherein the delivery request information includes information on a delivery number of batteries to be delivered to the delivery destination (see Fig. 3 "number of batteries" field being set to "2" as well as [0070]-[0071] "the reservation input component 23a inputs information such as the number of battery packs 1 that need to be exchanged, the total power amount, when the user wants to receive the battery packs, and so forth from the person making the reservation. The reservation input component 23a then selects the battery stations 30a to 30c to be reserved by the person making the reservation via the reservation input screen S1 displayed on the display component 23. On the reservation input screen S1 shown in FIG. 3, the number of battery packs 1 that need to be exchanged is inputted as “2,”")
and the storage device is selected from storage device candidates registered in advance based on information on an inventory number of batteries stored in each of the storage device candidates and the information on the delivery number of batteries (see [0076] "the input acceptance component 11 presents one or more of the battery stations 30a to 30c satisfying the needs of the person making the reservation as reservation destination candidates on the basis of the various information inputted on the reservation input screen S1 shown in FIG. 3" for the battery stations being determined based on their ability to provide the number of batteries specified in Screen S1 above.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of the delivery request including a number of batteries to be delivered and selecting a storage device to retrieve batteries from based on the number of batteries to be delivered and the number of batteries in the inventory of the storage device of Takatsuka ‘788 to the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Takatsuka ‘788 to the teaching of the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such delivery request including a number of batteries to be delivered and selecting a storage device to retrieve batteries from based on the number of batteries to be delivered and the number of batteries in the inventory of the storage device. Further, applying delivery request including a number of batteries to be delivered and selecting a storage device to retrieve batteries from based on the number of batteries to be delivered and the number of batteries in the inventory of the storage device to the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient delivery of batteries to the end user. Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by selecting storage locations that could satisfy the requested number of batteries for delivery in the system of Nozawa, the deliverer of Nozawa would no longer have to manually review inventory information and determine whether a storage location would be likely to have sufficient batteries to fulfill the request. Eliminating this manual review would not only save time effort of the deliverer deciding where to go, but the elimination would also preclude the possibility of a deliverer arriving at a storage location only to discover that there are not enough batteries in the storage location to fulfill the delivery request. The courier would no longer risk having to spend extra time and effort traveling to multiple storage locations to gather batteries because the first location was too low on inventory.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Kieboom and Iwata et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0156689, hereafter known as Iwata).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches:
wherein the delivery request information further includes food/drink delivery request information (see [0066]-[0068] "The delivery candidate 201 may provide other delivery services in addition to the above delivery services. Therefore, in addition to the battery 6, other articles may be delivered at the same time...The other article may be, for example, an ingredient such as meat, fish, or vegetables...Other articles can be specified by the delivery applicant 101 by inputting to the communication terminal 3, and the delivery request RQ is delivered in addition to the delivery location and delivery time of the battery 6 as illustrated in FIG. 13A. Information on "other articles" designated by the applicant 101 is included" for the delivery request information also including food in addition to the battery)
While Nozawa teaches the request and delivery of food in addition to the delivery of a battery, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom does not explicitly teach the food request information being to a restaurant, the delivery instruction including location information of the restaurant, and the deliverer being selected based on the location of the restaurant. However, Iwata teaches:
wherein the delivery request information further includes food/drink delivery request information to a restaurant (see Fig. 7 and [0047] "a store designation screen shown on a right side at the upper stage in FIG. 7 is displayed on the user terminal 3, and the store S can be designated by an operation such as touching any of icons of the stores S displayed in this manner with a finger. After the store S is designated in this manner, a food list screen shown on the left side of a lower stage in FIG. 7 is displayed" for the user delivery request including selecting a restaurant and selecting a food item from the restaurant)
the delivery instruction information includes fifth location information of the restaurant, and the deliverer is selected further based on the fifth location information of the restaurant (see [0059] "the management server 2 generates pickup sequence information based on which the delivery person Pd receives the food 10 from each store S (step #303). Specifically, the pickup sequence information is generated based on the store name and the store position information of each store S included in the store information" and [0064] "The pickup and delivery information generated in this manner is transmitted (sent) to the delivery person terminal 4 of the delivery person Pd (step #305). The delivery person Pd who receives the pickup and delivery information can confirm, based on the pickup sequence information displayed on the delivery person terminal 4, the position of the store S and the food 10 to be received, and can drive the vehicle 7 to travel according to the pickup sequence information and receive the food 10" for the delivery instructions including location information of the restaurant and the order in which the deliverer should pick up the multiple items of the user's order. See [0096] "The delivery system A is configured such that the delivery can be performed by selecting a delivery person Pd satisfying a predetermined condition from a plurality of delivery persons Pd who can individually perform the delivery using the vehicle 7...select a delivery person Pd who is present at a position where efficient delivery can be performed. By performing such selection, more rapid pickup and delivery can be performed" for selecting a delivery person who based on their location relative to the restaurant pickup locations allowing for efficient pickup and delivery)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the delivery request further including a restaurant and the deliverer being selected based on the location of the restaurant of Iwata into the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom. As Iwata states in [0096] "The delivery system A is configured such that the delivery can be performed by selecting a delivery person Pd satisfying a predetermined condition from a plurality of delivery persons Pd who can individually perform the delivery using the vehicle 7...select a delivery person Pd who is present at a position where efficient delivery can be performed. By performing such selection, more rapid pickup and delivery can be performed". Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by selecting a delivery person based on the pickup location of the food being ordered, more efficient battery and food delivery can be performed in the combination than in Nozawa alone. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that selecting the deliverer based on the location of the restaurant would simply be extending the deliverer selection criteria of Nozawa to the food pickup location instead of merely applying the Nozawa criteria to the battery pickup station alone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Kieboom and Buehre (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0087775, hereafter known as Buehre).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom does not explicitly teach the delivery instruction including authentication information that is authenticated only by the storage device. Buehre teaches:
wherein the delivery instruction information includes authentication information that is authenticated only by the storage device (see [0072]-[0077] "FIG. 6 shows an exemplary process to pickup an item from the storage device 20. Select or order an item to be shipped (602) Generate a passcode or PIN for a commercial carrier (604) Request item be picked up by carrier for shipping and provide passcode/PIN to carrier (606) Carrier comes to the location and provides code/PIN to open door and access a bin (608) Carrier picks up item, time of receipt of item" for providing a code or PIN that is validated by the storage device in [0037] "A user may gain access to cells of storage device 20 in a number of ways, such as by scanning or swiping a form of identification, or by scanning or entering a code, login, or PIN". In combination with Nozawa, the PIN provided to the deliverer is to retrieve a battery ordered for delivery by the customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the authentication information and authentication of couriers at pickup locations of Buehre into the battery delivery system of the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom. As Buehre states in [0002], unsecured delivery “carries the obvious liability of exposing the commercial carrier and/or the recipient to the risk that the unsecured parcel may be stolen” and in [0004] “To address this issue, systems are known which provide user services at remote locations. For example, locker systems may receive items placed by a user in a locker, or cell, of the system, and securely store the item until a delivery service provider arrives at the locker system to pick up the item”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by incorporating the authentication of couriers retrieving batteries from the storage locations into Nozawa, the resulting combination would prevent the batteries thefts compared to Nozawa alone.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Kieboom and Ackerman (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0088307, hereafter known as Ackerman).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nozawa further teaches:
wherein the first location information includes a plurality of locations of a plurality of storage devices that store batteries that can be delivered to the delivery destination (see [0051] "FIG. 10A shows a display example of the display unit 44. In the illustrated example, the delivery conditions and information on the storage location 300 of the battery 6 are displayed on the display unit 44. The delivery conditions include the delivery location and delivery time specified in the delivery request Race Queen. Further, in the illustrated example, two storage locations 300 are shown, and the number of charged batteries 6 in stock at each storage location 300 is also shown" for locations of multiple storage locations of batteries being displayed to the deliverer)
However, while Nozawa teaches displaying multiple locations of battery storage locations to the deliverer, the combination of Nozawa and Kieboom does not explicitly teach incentive information being provided to the deliverer according to a storage device from which the battery is acquired among the plurality of storage devices. Ackerman teaches:
and incentive information is provided to the deliverer according to a storage device from which the battery is acquired by the deliverer among the plurality of storage devices (see [0141] "promotions, such as coupons and discounts, may be provided for businesses at which kiosks are located at to incentivize consumers to select kiosks at the businesses" and [0043] "when a consumer 112 goes to a kiosk 110 that may be located at a gas station, a promotion may be offered to the consumer, such as $0.03 off per gallon during the consumer's visit when the consumer 112 retrieves the requested item at the kiosk. In another example, a kiosk may be located at a coffee shop, so a consumer 112 may be in