DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed October 03, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection. The Examiner has also withdrawn the drawings objection.
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 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1, 11 and 12
receiving, from each of a plurality of consignors, information about delivery of load including a load amount:
calculating a loading rate of load delivered by a same delivery means at a time based on the information about delivery;
assess whether the calculated loading rate is equal to or more than a predetermined value;
determine a basic incentive to the plurality of consignors in a case where the loading rate is equal to or more than the predetermined value, the basic incentive being a same incentive to the plurality of consignors based on the loading rate; and
determining and additional incentive to the plurality of consignors in a case where the loading rate is equal to or more than the predetermined value the additional incentive being an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors;
displaying the determined basic incentive and the determined additional incentive.
The limitations of independent claim 1, 13, and 20 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity because the claims have concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The applicant’s claims are directed to administering incentives based on performance metrics (e.g. a commercial interaction) Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using a memory, terminal device, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, calculating, assess, determine and display) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 elements of memory, terminal device processor, non-transitory computer readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 3-10 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 3-10 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1,3 - 12 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2003030293) in view of Official Notice.
Claim 1, 11, 12: Keisuke discloses a delivery assistance system comprising:
At least one memory storing instructions; (see for example [0006] page 2 that discloses a server)and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, from each of a plurality of consignors, via a terminal device of the each of the plurality of consignors information about delivery of load including a load amount: (see for example [0006], page 2 The transportation vehicle information includes the vehicle name, vehicle number, vehicle type, operating date, departure place, destination, loading schedule, maximum load capacity)
calculate a loading rate of load delivered by a same delivery means at a time based on the information about delivery; (see for example [0006] page 2 The basic fare calculation means that calculates the load rate, the loading rate calculation means that calculates the loading rate of the transportation vehicle from the maximum loading capacity of the transportation vehicle and the loading schedule, and the freight rate that fluctuates the freight rate according to the loading rate of the transportation vehicle)
whether the calculated loading rate is equal to or more than a predetermined value;(see for example pages 6 and 7, discloses the loading rate of the truck 23-45 is
80.From 100% to 100%, the discount rate for freight becomes 20% according to the discount rate set by the carrier)
determine a basic incentive to the plurality of consignors in a case where the loading rate is equal to or more than the predetermined value, the basic incentive being a same incentive to the plurality of consignors based on the loading rate;(page 6 and 7, as above the loading rate of 80%, and the predetermined value of 100% would give an incentive of a 20% discount discloses that shipper a, b, and c all receive the same discount of 20%) determine an additional incentive to the plurality of consignors in a case where the loading rate is equal to or more than the predetermined value, the additional incentive being an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors (pages 6 and 7 applying discounts to multiple consignors once the loading rate condition is met, including varying discount amounts to individual shippers)
and display on the terminal device the determined basic incentive and the determined additional incentive. (see for example page 7 that discloses displaying the confirmed fare on the display device, the shipper who requested the transportation of the
cargo can confirm the confirmed fare.) However, having additional incentives is well known to those of ordinary skill and Official Notice is hereby taken. For example retailers routinely give additional incentives to encourage consumers to shop frequently by offering more incentives based on meeting predetermined criteria. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have modified the system of Keisuke to have to provide multiple incentive components once the loading threshold is met to motivate participation and improve efficiency in logistic systems.
Claim 3: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
calculating a loading rate of load loaded onto the delivery means for each of the plurality of consignors, the additional an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to the loading rate for each of the plurality of consignors. (page 6 and 7)
Claim 4: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the higher the loading rate for each of the plurality of consignors is, the higher an incentive is. (see for example page 2, discloses discounts being set according to the loading rate. such as discounting the fare according to the loading rate of the transportation vehicle, and increasing The collection amount can be increased.(see page 6 and 7)
Claim 9: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the basic incentive and the additional incentive are at least any one of a discount of a current delivery and a discount of a next delivery. (page 7 discloses a discount)
Claim 10: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the delivery means includes a truck. (see page 7, discloses a truck)
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2003030293) in view of Official Notice, further in view of Hiroki (JP 2021056587)
Claim 5: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive via the terminal device of each of the plurality of consignors the information about the deliver included a predicted load amount (page 2) but does not explicitly; disclose determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a date when the predicted load amount is received. However Hiroki discloses determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a date when the predicted load amount is received. (page 9) It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Keisuke to have included determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a date when the predicted load amount is received. The reference of Keisuke and Hiroki both discloses transportation of cargo. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the system of early reservation to determine a discount of Hiroki for determining of discount of Keisuke. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claim 6: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: but does not explicitly disclose determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the earlier a date when the predicted load amount is received is, the higher an incentive is. However Hiroki discloses determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the earlier a date when the predicted load amount is received is, the higher an incentive is. (page 6, 7, and 9) It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Keisuke to have included determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the earlier a date when the predicted load amount is received is, the higher an incentive is. The reference of Keisuke and Hiroki both discloses transportation of cargo. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the system of early reservation to determine a discount of Hiroki for determining of discount of Keisuke. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke (JP 2003030293) in view of Official Notice, further in view of Driegert et al. (US 11, 392, 881)
Claim 7: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive, via the terminal device of each of the plurality of consignors, the information about delivery included a predicted load amount; (pages 6 and 7)
receive, via the terminal device of each of the plurality of consignors, the information about delivery included a confirmed load amount; (pages 6 and 7)
but does not explicitly disclose determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount. However Driegert discloses determine the additional incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount.(Col. 5 lines 1-37 and Col. 7 lines 5-20, which although it focuses on travel distance rather than load prediction discrepancies, it highlights dynamic adjustment of shipment values in response to logistical variables.) It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Keisuke to have included determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount. The reference of Keisuke and Driegert both discloses transportation of cargo. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the system of adjusting pricing based on logistical variables of Driegert for determining of discount of Keisuke. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claim 8: Keisuke discloses the delivery assistance system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: but does not explicitly disclose determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the smaller a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount is, the higher an incentive is. However Driegert discloses determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors in such a way that the smaller a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount is, the higher an incentive is.(Col5 lines 39-55) It would have it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Keisuke to have included determine an incentive to each of the plurality of consignors according to a difference between the predicted load amount and the confirmed load amount. The reference of Keisuke and Driegert both discloses transportation of cargo. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the system of adjusting pricing based on logistical variables of Driegert for determining of discount of Keisuke. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the 101 rejection by stating that the claims are not abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims are directed to administering incentives based on performance metrics (e.g. a commercial interaction) and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by stating, “For example, "display on the terminal device the determined basic incentive and the determined additional incentive," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11 and 12 is not merely implementing an abstract idea to a generic computer, and cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C..” The applicant’s claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions) and/or mental processes. Furthermore, displaying the results of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(g) is considered insignificant extra solution activity. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by stating that the claims are integrated into a practical application and also states that the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees however the applicant has not provided any evidence or arguments as to how/why the claims are integrated into a practical applicant/significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus this argument is moot. The applicant argues Berkheimer, the Examiner respectfully disagreesBerkheimer evidence is not required, the Examiner has not asserted in the 101 rejection that any limitations are insignificant extra solution activity, nor has the Examiner stated that any limitations or additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional. Thus, the Examiner is not required to provide Berkheimer evidence. (see mpep 2106.07 states - At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2b") The applicant asserts an improvement in joint delivery but does not provide any arguments in regards to how or what is improved. Nor does the applicant provide a citation in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) - If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but 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), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not appear to have any limitations that indicative of integration into a practical application.
In regards the applicant’s argument that the reference of Keisuke does not disclose the added amendment, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the reference teaches determining a benefit in the form of a discounted freight charge based on a calculated loading rate, the discount is applied when the loading rate satisfies a carrier defined condition. (e.g. the freight is discounted according to the loading rate). Multiple shippers receive discounted amounts (pages 6 and 7) when the loading rate of the truck reaches a specified level. Using broadest reasonable interpretation the discounted freight is considered an incentive determined based on whether the loading rate meets a predetermined value and based on loading rates additional discounts can be obtained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahmani (US 2017/0344932) - System further assists shippers and carriers by conducting offer generation, management, negotiation and dispatch on behalf of users. System grades offers based on unit qualities and generate offers based on user instruction by applying variable determining factors. Additionally system provides retractable conditional offer capability and delay analyzer assistance prior to negotiation and after dispatch.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622