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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated May 29, 2025. In RCE, submitted August 28, 2025, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-11 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 7 of the Response regarding the previous interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), have been fully considered and the interpretation remains as part of this Action for clarity of the record.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 7-9 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 7-8 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 5, and 6 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. … Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Office asserts that the claims recite an abstract idea involving ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ and ‘mathematical concepts.’ Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are not directed to organizing human activity in the abstract, nor do they merely recite mathematical operations. Instead, they are directed to a specific technological solution to a logistical problem: optimizing delivery payload consolidation based on calculated residual space in standardized container units. The claimed disclosure introduces a novel data structure - residual converted storage container type information - which standardizes residual space using fractional container types. This structure enables the system to perform real-time matching of delivery payloads with available space, improving delivery efficiency and reducing costs. The claims also recite a rule- based algorithm for filtering consolidation candidates based on delivery type, weight, and user- defined preferences. These features are not abstract - they are concrete, technical implementations that improve the functioning of the system.
Examiner notes, “optimizing delivery payload consolidation based on calculated residual space in standardized container units” is a recitation of the abstract idea that highlights the abstract groupings noted in the rejection below. Specifically “optimizing delivery payload consolidation … in standardized container units” (a certain method organizing human activity, more specifically a commercial interaction) and “based on calculate[ing] residual space” (emphasis added) (a mathematical concept). Further “residual converted storage container type information” is part of the abstract idea, which is supported by the Applicant’s specification which discloses that it is merely data which indicates what size containers can fit in the available space. As far as this being a “novel data structure”, this alleged improvement does not appear to be technical in light of the current application, and even if it were it is presented in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Examiner also notes, “perform real-time matching of delivery payloads with available space, improving delivery efficiency and reducing costs” and “rule- based algorithm for filtering consolidation candidates based on delivery type, weight, and user- defined preference” are also recitations of the abstract idea, rather than technical, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Office contends that the claims merely invoke generic components (e.g., storage part, residual space calculation part, consolidation target delivery extraction part, operator terminal) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that this analysis overlooks the specific improvements recited in the claims and supported by the specification. As in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims improve the way the system processes and manages data. The use of fractional container types and residual conversion logic is a specific improvement over conventional systems that rely on manual or ad hoc volume estimation. The claimed disclosure enables automated, scalable logistics management that was not previously feasible. As in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims recite a rules-based automation that performs a task not achievable manually at scale. The rule-based filtering and operator-assisted selection provide a concrete technological solution to a logistical problem, not a mere mental process.
Examiner notes that no support for the claimed invention directly being “a specific improvement over conventional systems that rely on manual or ad hoc volume estimation” and “perform[ing] task not achievable manually at scale” could be found in the specification, as these are never raised as problems which the invention seeks to solve. Similar to the discussion above, these alleged improvements are presented in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). This stands in contrast to Enfish and McRO which provide detailed support for how their respective claims provided technical improvements to the technology they are deployed on.
Examiner further notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the “rule-based filtering and operator-assisted selection”, rather than being a concrete technical solution, is a recitation of the abstract idea which, similar to the claims of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), merely utilizes improvements “inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” but “does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.”
Examiner finally notes, that “mental process” has not been utilized as a basis for ineligibility over 101 in this or any previous Office Action regarding this case, therefore this aspect of the argument is moot.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under Step 2B, the Office asserts that the claims do not provide an inventive concept and merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The combination of standardized container modeling, residual space conversion, and rule-based consolidation filtering constitutes a specific, non-conventional arrangement of components that provides a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claims. The claims do not preempt all forms of delivery optimization or storage management - they are narrowly tailored to a specific implementation. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, are integrated into a practical application, and recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-4 and 8-11, depending inter alia from 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 independent claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is now believed appropriate and is, therefore, respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, while the claimed subject matter is focuses on a particular implementation, insofar as they are claimed “standardized container modeling, residual space conversion, and rule-based consolidation filtering constitutes a specific” are recitations of the abstract idea. As discussed in the detailed rejection below, the “components”, or additional elements (such as: a residual space calculation part, a consolidation target delivery extraction part, a storage part, an operator terminal, a CPU, a GPU, and a management server) when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination amount to mere tools used to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”). Consistent with court findings as detailed in MPEP 2106.05, these additional elements fail to amount to significantly more at Step 2B. Therefore after full and proper analysis, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “accomodate” in limitation 1 and should recite “accommodate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitations is/are: “a storage part configured to store (i) reference storage space volume information … and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information” (claims 1, 5), and “a consolidation target delivery extraction part … configured to” (i) extract consolidation target delivery information … (ii) apply rule-based filtering conditions … and, (iii) present the extracted consolidation target delivery information” (claim 5).
Claims 1, and 5 invoke means plus function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the recitation of “a storage part configured to store (i) reference storage space volume information … and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information” (claims 1, 5), and “a consolidation target delivery extraction part … configured to” (i) extract consolidation target delivery information … (ii) apply rule-based filtering conditions … and, (iii) present the extracted consolidation target delivery information” (claim 5) with no corresponding recitation of structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function.
The “storage part” is defined in the specification as “At least …, a memory 11, a storage 12, … are provided in the management server 1 … The memory 11 comprises a main memory comprising a volatile storage device such as DRAM (dynamic random access memory), and an auxiliary memory comprising a non-volatile storage device such as flash memory or HDD (hard disk drive) … The storage 12 stores various programs such as application programs or the like. A database storing data used in each process may be constructed in the storage 12.” “the storage 12 includes various databases such as a user information storage part 121, a delivery payload information storage part 122, and a delivery information storage part 123.” in Para. 15-18, and 23.
The “consolidation target delivery extraction part” are defined in the specification as “the control part 10 is a computing device that controls the overall operation of the management server 1” “the functions implemented in the control part 10 of the management server 1 … data management part 120, … and a consolidation target delivery extraction part 152” in Para. 16 and 23.
Claims depending on the above are also invoked by way of their dependency.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, and 8-11 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 5 is directed to a server (i.e., a machine); and claim 6 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-6, and 8-11 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume;
(i) calculating residual space information indicating a remaining volume in the storage space by subtracting the delivery payload volume from the reference storage space volume,
(ii) converting the residual space into residual converted storage container type information by mapping the remaining volume to one or more predefined container types based on the fractional divisions, and
(iii) storing and transmitting the residual converted storage container type information; and
(i) extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user, by comparing the storage container type information of the first user with the residual converted storage container type information of the second user, (ii) applying rule-based filtering conditions including delivery type, weight, and consolidation acceptance status, and
(iii) presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery to an operator distinct from the first and second users, and determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation performed by the operator.
Independent claim 5 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume; and
extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user,
presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information to an operator who is different from the first and second users, and
determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation.
Independent claim 6 substantially recites storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads associated with respective users, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume;
extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user;
presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information to an operator who is different from the first and second users; and
determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of determining available storage space and consolidation of payloads. It is also noted that certain limitations stated under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “mathematical concepts” as well. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 5, and 6 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a residual space calculation part (claim 1), (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part (claims 1, 5), (iii) a storage part (claim 1, 5), (iv) an operator terminal (claim 1, 5, 6), (v) a CPU (claim 1), (vi) a GPU (claim1), and (vii) a management server (claim 1).
The additional elements of (i) a residual space calculation part, (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part, (iii) a storage part, (iv) an operator terminal, (v) a CPU, (vi) a GPU, and (vii) a management server are recited at a high level of generality (See [0016 & 0034] of the Applicant’s specification discussing the residual space calculation part, [0016 & 0046] discussing the consolidation target delivery extraction part, [0018 and 0023] discussing the storage part, [0021] discussing the operator terminal, [0016] discussing the CPU and the GPU, and [0014] discussing the management server) 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, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 showing all the additional elements (i) a residual space calculation part, (ii) a consolidation target delivery extraction part, (iii) a storage part, (iv) an operator terminal, (v) a CPU, (vi) a GPU, and (vii) a management server 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, 5, and 6 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4, and 8-11 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 2-4, and 8-11 are also ineligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(2) 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arunapuram (US 20120158385) (hereafter Arunapuram) in view of Ghione (US 3887068) (hereafter Ghione) and further in view of Gorlin (US 20160104113) (hereafter Gorlin).
In regards to claim 5, Arunapuram discloses a system, comprising: a storage part configured to store (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, (Para. 23-24) (“database system 30 may store information related to items for shipping including their dimensions, weight, volume, destination, and any other relevant attributes (i.e. (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, wherein the storage container type is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume). Database system 30 may store information related to containers, including their size, dimensions, attributes such as any obstructions (i.e. (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads for each user)… Database system 30 may include a database server and any type of database, such as a relational or flat file database. Database system 30 may store attributes related to items and container”)
Arunapuram discloses a consolidation target delivery extraction part configured to: extract consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user, (Para. 31-32, 40, 46, 61) (“three dimensional packing module 16 can handle a number of constraints to produce an efficient simulation of load packing and to provide the user with a customizable solution that meets their specific requirements or constraints. At least the following constraints can be handled: Dimensions of the product (i.e. target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user)” “Multi-stop constraints—as goods are picked up or delivered at various stops, new spaces become available for loading additional boxes. The three dimensional load packing 16 logic must understand this new space when loading additional boxes.” “At 300, the process includes sorting items, spaces, and rotations according to an item sort criteria, empty space sort criteria, and rotation sort criteria, respectively. … while empty spaces are available in the container(s), the process includes selecting an empty space, item, and permissible rotation based on the iteration criteria. Then, at 330, it is determined whether it is feasible to place the selected item (i.e. target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user) in the selected empty space (i.e. residual converted storage container type information) using the selected rotation (i.e. extract consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user).” “Modules may also be partially implemented in software for execution by various types of processors (i.e. a consolidation target delivery extraction part).” That is, the three dimensional packing module constraints account for information on each item to be considered for packing, therefore the “dimensions of the product” constraint accounts for both the “residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user” as discussed above and the “target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user” as discussed in this citation.)
Arunapuram discloses present the extracted consolidation target delivery information (Para. 22, 27) (“a display 24, such as a Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD"), for displaying information to a user, such as the load placement of a container, as will be discussed in more detail below.” “Three dimensional packing module 16 may then control system 10 to have display 24 show the three dimensional simulation of the items loaded on the at least one container.”)
Arunapuram does not explicitly disclose, however Ghione, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram; (Col. 1, Ln. 3-12; Col. 5, Ln. 39-60) (“This invention relates to a mailing container (i.e. storage container) system … The modules are in three standard sizes only” “the universally sized mailing container modules of this invention are adapted to be nested in one or more standard configurations (i.e. fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) for easy handling, self-containment and space economy. FIG. 4 illustrates the disposition of a pack of nine modules wherein six module A's and two module B's are nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C. FIG. 5 illustrates an alternate embodiment wherein four module A's and three module B's are nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a module C (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram). In addition to the versions of FIGS. 4 and 5 as will be obvious to those skilled in the art, the kit of this invention may be marketed in a unit of, for example, only module A's nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C, or only module B's nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram). It should be noted, however, that in each of the aforementioned configurations module A's or module B's may be grouped, i.e. cubed up, for containment in groups of nearly the same volumetric dimensions (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified load packing of Arunapuram with the modular container system of Ghione in order to allow for more efficient packing and containment. (Ghione – Col. 6, Ln. 63-Col. 7, Ln. 12)
As discussed above, Arunapuram discloses a system. Arunapuram in view of Ghione does not explicitly disclose, however Gorlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the system of Arunapuram is a server (Para. 144) (“a server 504 (also referred to herein as the system) (i.e. the system of Arunapuram is a server)”)
Arunapuram in view of Ghione does not explicitly disclose, however Gorlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses present the extracted consolidation target delivery information of Arunapuram at an operator terminal owned by an operator who is different from the first and second users of Arunapuram, and (Para. 227) (“From operation 2101, the method proceeds to operation 2102, wherein the server generates (see FIG. 22) at least one proposed consolidation route which is displayed to the driver.”)
Arunapuram in view of Ghione does not explicitly disclose, however Gorlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses determine a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation at the operator terminal. (Para. 225-227) (“In operation 2100, a driver makes a request (i.e. a selection operation at the operator terminal) (using a web interface or his/her portable computing device) to generate a consolidation route which can be transmitted to the server. … as part of the request (operation 2100) the driver can also include parameters of the desired consolidation route. … From operation 2101, the method proceeds to operation 2102, wherein the server generates (see FIG. 22) at least one proposed consolidation route which is displayed to the driver. Each proposed consolidation route displays all pickup and drop-off locations (i.e. determine a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation at the operator terminal) along the route and can be displayed in map form.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified load packing of Arunapuram in view of Ghione with the delivery system of Gorlin in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the system. (Gorlin – Para. 208)
In regards to claim 6, Arunapuram discloses an information processing method, comprising: storing (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads associated with respective users, and (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload, (Para. 23-24) (“database system 30 may store information related to items for shipping including their dimensions, weight, volume, destination, and any other relevant attributes (i.e. (ii) delivery payload volume information including storage container type information indicating a type of storage container used for each delivery payload). Database system 30 may store information related to containers, including their size, dimensions, attributes such as any obstructions (i.e. (i) reference storage space volume information indicating a volume of a storage space configured to accommodate one or more storage containers for storing delivery payloads associated with respective users)… Database system 30 may include a database server and any type of database, such as a relational or flat file database. Database system 30 may store attributes related to items and container”)
Arunapuram discloses extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user; (Para. 31-32, 40, 46, 61) (“three dimensional packing module 16 can handle a number of constraints to produce an efficient simulation of load packing and to provide the user with a customizable solution that meets their specific requirements or constraints. At least the following constraints can be handled: Dimensions of the product (i.e. target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user)” “Multi-stop constraints—as goods are picked up or delivered at various stops, new spaces become available for loading additional boxes. The three dimensional load packing 16 logic must understand this new space when loading additional boxes.” “At 300, the process includes sorting items, spaces, and rotations according to an item sort criteria, empty space sort criteria, and rotation sort criteria, respectively. … while empty spaces are available in the container(s), the process includes selecting an empty space, item, and permissible rotation based on the iteration criteria. Then, at 330, it is determined whether it is feasible to place the selected item (i.e. target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user) in the selected empty space (i.e. residual converted storage container type information) using the selected rotation (i.e. extracting consolidation target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user whose residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user).” “Modules may also be partially implemented in software for execution by various types of processors (i.e. a consolidation target delivery extraction part).” That is, the three dimensional packing module constraints account for information on each item to be considered for packing, therefore the “dimensions of the product” constraint accounts for both the “residual converted storage container type information indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate a delivery payload of a first user” as discussed above and the “target delivery information indicating deliveries of a second user” as discussed in this citation.)
Arunapuram discloses presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information (Para. 22, 27) (“a display 24, such as a Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD"), for displaying information to a user, such as the load placement of a container, as will be discussed in more detail below.” “Three dimensional packing module 16 may then control system 10 to have display 24 show the three dimensional simulation of the items loaded on the at least one container.”)
Arunapuram does not explicitly disclose, however Ghione, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram; (Col. 1, Ln. 3-12; Col. 5, Ln. 39-60) (“This invention relates to a mailing container (i.e. storage container) system … The modules are in three standard sizes only” “the universally sized mailing container modules of this invention are adapted to be nested in one or more standard configurations (i.e. fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) for easy handling, self-containment and space economy. FIG. 4 illustrates the disposition of a pack of nine modules wherein six module A's and two module B's are nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C. FIG. 5 illustrates an alternate embodiment wherein four module A's and three module B's are nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a module C (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram). In addition to the versions of FIGS. 4 and 5 as will be obvious to those skilled in the art, the kit of this invention may be marketed in a unit of, for example, only module A's nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C, or only module B's nested (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram) in a single module C (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram). It should be noted, however, that in each of the aforementioned configurations module A's or module B's may be grouped, i.e. cubed up, for containment in groups of nearly the same volumetric dimensions (i.e. the storage container type of Arunapuram is defined based on fractional divisions of the reference storage space volume of Arunapuram).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified load packing of Arunapuram with the modular container system of Ghione in order to allow for more efficient packing and containment. (Ghione – Col. 6, Ln. 63-Col. 7, Ln. 12)
Arunapuram in view of Ghione does not explicitly disclose, however Gorlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses presenting the extracted consolidation target delivery information of Arunapuram at an operator terminal owned by an operator who is different from the first and second users of Arunapuram, and (Para. 227) (“From operation 2101, the method proceeds to operation 2102, wherein the server generates (see FIG. 22) at least one proposed consolidation route which is displayed to the driver.”)
Arunapuram in view of Ghione does not explicitly disclose, however Gorlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation at the operator terminal. (Para. 225-227) (“In operation 2100, a driver makes a request (i.e. a selection operation at the operator terminal) (using a web interface or his/her portable computing device) to generate a consolidation route which can be transmitted to the server. … as part of the request (operation 2100) the driver can also include parameters of the desired consolidation route. … From operation 2101, the method proceeds to operation 2102, wherein the server generates (see FIG. 22) at least one proposed consolidation route which is displayed to the driver. Each proposed consolidation route displays all pickup and drop-off locations (i.e. determining a delivery of the second user as a target of consolidated delivery in response to a selection operation at the operator terminal) along the route and can be displayed in map form.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified load packing of Arunapuram in view of Ghione with the delivery system of Gorlin in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the system. (Gorlin – Para. 208)
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-4, and 8-11 are 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 systems and methods for storing space related information regarding item volumes and storage volumes, determining residual space, determining if additional items may be included in a given residual space of a storage container.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0101470 to Nishimura et al (hereafter Nishimura). Nishimura discloses using shape and dimension information regarding a payload to determine transportation conditions.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0312991 to Baradwaj et al (hereafter Baradwaj). Baradwaj discloses determining the possible consolidation targets as a first user having delivery items that may be able to be consolidated with a second user who has delivery items.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0311751 to Delmerico et al (hereafter Delmerico). Delmerico discloses presenting consolidation information on an operator terminal and determining selection operations at the operator terminal, where the operator is neither the first nor second user.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0343508 to Fosgard et al (hereafter Fosgard). Fosgard discloses fractional divisions of the reference storage space in order to determine storage container type information indicating a type of storage container that can be used for delivery.
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. 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
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628