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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20-23 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated September 11, 2025. In RCE, submitted November 11, 2025, claims 1, 17, 18, and 21 were amended, and claim 22 was cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, and 23 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 7-8 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended claims. Therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 8 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of amended claim 21 and moot in view of the amended claim 22. Therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 8-9 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “These amendments address the concerns raised by the Office in the outstanding Office Action, i.e., the claimed subject matter is clearly directed to a practical application. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate claim 22 considering claim 22 is not subject to the 35 USC 101 rejection. The above applies similarly to independent claims 17 and 18, which recite features similar to amended independent claim 1. In the least, these amendments address the concerns raised by the Office in the outstanding Office Action, i.e., the claimed subject matter is clearly directed to a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-16, 20, 21, and 23, depending inter alia from amended independent claim 1, and including further patentable features, is considered patentable at least for these features and/or the reason(s) advanced with respect to amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are now believed appropriate and is, therefore, respectfully requested.
Examiner notes, while Claim 22 was omitted from paragraph 24 of the cited Final Office Action due to a typographical error, the claim was accurately included as rejected within the analysis of the claims under 101, as discussed in paragraphs 38-43 of the cited Final Office Action, and Examiner provided guidance for a potential path to brings the claims to eligibility. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the amended claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into any practical application provided in the amended claims. Specifically, there is no nexus between calculation of residual space a storage space, the determination of the delivery schedule based on residual space information and predetermined condition(s) including update conditions (or later incorporated restriction conditions), or approval of a consolidation request and controlling autonomous equipment comprising a work robot to (i) retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from a delivery payload management space and (ii) store them in a same storage space. Rather, the amended claims recite additional elements such as “a delivery schedule determination part”, “generating control signals”, and “autonomous equipment comprising a work robot” which are recited at such high levels of generality that they amount merely using the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea or generally link the abstract idea to the field of autonomous equipment, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Further, it is important to note that the ”a same storage space”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is wholly separate and unrelated to “the storage space” recited in earlier limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “SYSTEM AND SERVER, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR CALCULATING RESIDUAL SPACE AND CONSOLIDATION OF DELIVERY PAYLOADS.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 has been amended to recite “a delivery schedule determination part is configured to control by generating control signals that cause autonomous equipment comprising a work robot to (i) retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from a delivery payload management space and (ii) store them in a same storage space.”
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Examiner notes that Paragraph [0016] of Applicant’s Specification states that “The control part 10 is a computing device that controls the overall operation of the management server 1, controls the transmission and reception of data between each element, and performs information processing necessary for executing applications and authentication processing.” Paragraph [0021] states “The bus 15 is connected to each of the above elements in common, and transmits … various control signals, for example.” Paragraph [0023] states “the control part 10 of the management server 1 has the following function parts… and delivery management part 150. The delivery management part 150 includes … a delivery schedule determination part 152.” Paragraph [0069] states “based on the consolidation target delivery information and delivery schedule information, the equipment used for storing the delivery payload (such as a storage robot, storage arm, or movable storage platform) may be controlled autonomously to retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from the delivery payload management space (e.g., shelves) and store them in the same storage space.”
That is, no description, explanation, or detail of how the delivery schedule determination part generates control signals or how the control signals provide control of the “autonomous equipment comprising a work robot” is provided.
Claims 2, 3, 6-16, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 17, and 18 recite the limitation "the other user" in limitation 4 of claims 1 and 18, and limitation 6 of claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted as “the another user”.
Claims 2, 3, 6-16, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected by virtue of dependency
Claims 6, 7, 16 recite the limitations “the other user”. It is unclear whether this refers to the “the other user” of limitation 4 of claim 1, or one of the “other users” introduced in limitation 5 of claim 1. For examination purposes, these limitation will be interpreted as “the another user”.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the other user” and “another user”. It is unclear whether this refers to the “the other user” of limitation 4 of claim 1, or one of the “other users” introduced in limitation 5 of claim 1. It is also unclear whether the “another user” is a different “another user” than the “another user” introduced in limitation 4 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitations of claim 15 reciting “the other user” will be interpreted as “the another user”, and “another user” will be interpreted as “the another user”.
Claim 8 recites “the predetermined condition is an update restriction condition that does not allow the delivery schedule to be updated”, however this depends from claim 1 which recites “wherein the predetermined condition comprises an update condition configured to update the delivery schedule” in limitation 4. It is unclear how the “predetermined condition” of claim 8 is able to not allow the delivery schedule to be updated when the “predetermined condition” of claim 1 comprises an update condition to update the delivery schedule. For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the predetermined condition is an updated restriction condition that places restrictions on the updating of the delivery schedule.” (emphasis added)
Claims 9-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 6-16, and 20, 21, and 23 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 17 is directed to a server (i.e., a machine); and claim 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20, 21, and 23 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 17 substantially recite calculating residual space information indicating residual space within a storage space based on (i) storage container type information indicating the type of storage container for storing delivery payloads to users, and (ii) reference storage space volume information indicating the volume of the storage space that stores the storage container; and
determining a delivery schedule for the delivery payload based on at least the residual space information and a predetermined condition related to the delivery,
wherein the predetermined condition comprises an update condition configured to update the delivery schedule,
the update condition is that the user has approved a consolidation request from another user related to the user, and that it is not possible to store the delivery payload of the other user in the user's pre-update delivery schedule in time, and
causing to (i) retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from a delivery payload management space and (ii) store them in a same storage space.
Independent claim 18 substantially recites calculating, based on storage container type information indicating the type of storage container for storing a delivery payload to the user for each storage container volume and reference storage space volume information indicating the volume of the storage space that stores the storage container, residual space information indicating the residual space within the storage space; and
determining, based on at least the residual space information and a predetermined condition related to the delivery, the delivery schedule of the delivery payload,
wherein the predetermined condition comprises an update condition configured to update the delivery schedule,
the update condition is that the user has approved a consolidation request from another user related to the user, and that it is not possible to store the delivery payload of the other user in the user's pre-update delivery schedule in time, and
causing to (i) retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from a delivery payload management space and (ii) store them in a same storage space.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) managing delivery payloads (See specification, para. 8). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 17, and 18 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a processor (claims 1, 17), (ii) a memory (claim 17), (iii) a delivery schedule determination part (claims 1, 17,18), (iv) generating control signals (claims 1, 17,18), and (v) autonomous equipment comprising a work robot (claims 1, 17,18).
The additional elements of (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, (iii) a delivery schedule determination part are recited at a high level of generality (see [0016] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the processor, [0017] discussing the memory, [0023] discussing the delivery schedule determination part) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iv) generating control signals, and (v) autonomous equipment comprising a work robot are recited at a high level of generality (See [0026] of the Applicant' s PG Publication discussing the barcodes) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., autonomous equipment technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figure 4 showing all the additional elements (i) a processor, (ii) a memory, and (iii) a delivery schedule determination part in combination. Also considered, but not explicitly depicted in the figures are the additional elements (iv) generating control signals, and (v) autonomous equipment comprising a work robot in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 17, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6-16, and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 3, 6-16, and 20 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 21 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and further recites the abstract idea of: reorganizing storage locations of delivery payloads to improve residual space utilization. Claim 21 also recites the additional elements of the residual space calculation part, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0016 & 0034 & 0038] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the residual space calculation part) ) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of the residual space calculation part does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 23 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and further recites the abstract idea of: rejecting consolidation of delivery payloads, and the residual space information includes a conversion of multiple storage container types into an equivalent single container type. Claim 23 also recites the additional elements of a user interface element, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0028 & 0051] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the user interface element) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of the user interface element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 23 is ineligible.
Examiner notes, providing support for how the control of the autonomous equipment is performed by the delivery schedule determination part based on delivery schedule and consolidation target delivery information, and nexus between the control limitations and the abstract limitations may bring this claim to eligibility. However, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, the specification is lacking support for “a delivery schedule determination part is configured to control by generating control signals that cause autonomous equipment comprising a work robot to (i) retrieve the user's delivery payload and other users' delivery payloads from a delivery payload management space and (ii) store them in a same storage space.”
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 6-18, 20, 21, and 23are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0158385 to Arunapuram et al (hereafter Arunapuram). Arunapuram discloses calculating residual space for shipment of goods involved in scheduled deliveries and conditions for delivery, as well as reference storage space volume information and container type information.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0071955 to Nakamura et al (hereafter Nakamura). Nakamura discloses shipment scheduling and conditions for modifying schedules, as well as updating delivery scheduling.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 8,554,694 to Ward et al (hereafter Ward). Ward discloses update conditions where a user has approved consolidation request of related users.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0048878 to Metcalf et al (hereafter Metcalf). Metcalf discloses determining inability to consolidate at scheduled delivery time.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0271785 to Gravelle et al (hereafter Gravelle). Gravelle discloses use of autonomous work robots to retrieve and store payloads together.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Arunapuram in view of Nakamura and further in view of Ward and even further in view of Metcalf and even further in view of Gravelle does not explicitly disclose packing payloads of different users based on the update condition that the user approved a consolidation request. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628