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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-6, 8-9, and 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, from which claims 5-6 depend upon requires that “the package [delivered] by other delivery means different from the delivery person” (emphasis added). Therefore, the package cannot be delivered by the delivery person as required in claims 5-6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, from which claims 8-9 depend upon, requires that the vehicle “travels on a land route;” whereas claims 8-9 require that the vehicle “travels on a route different from the land route.” Both travel scenarios are mutually exclusive. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, from which claims 15-16 depend upon, requires that the “the condition is not satisfied;” whereas claims 15-16 require that “the condition is satisfied.” Both scenarios are mutually exclusive. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 17-19 each recite a mental process and a method of organizing human activity because each claim recites a method that includes determining, based on request details included in a delivery request regarding delivery or collection of a package registered by a delivery client, whether having a delivery person responding to the delivery request satisfies a condition regarding delivery efficiency of the delivery person; and generating, based on a determination made by the determination unit that the condition is not satisfied, delivery instruction information regarding delivery or collection of the package by other delivery means different from the delivery person. This is a mental process and a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., the sender, the recipient and the delivery person). The mere nominal recitation of a determination unit, a generation unit, an information processing device, and a computer does not take the claim out of the mental processes or method of organizing human activity groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Each claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining and generating in a computer environment. The claimed determination unit, generation unit, information processing device, and computer are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining and generating in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining delivery instruction information sent to an administrator and an unmanned vehicle. Claims 5-9 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining delivering the package using a land vehicle, autonomous land vehicle, and an unmanned aircraft. Claims 10-14 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining how it is determined whether the condition is satisfied. Claims 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by e.g., further defining generating and transmitting delivery instruction information regarding delivery or collection of the package. Thus, claims 2-16 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-16 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xian US 20200111051 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Xian discloses an information processing system comprising: a determination unit that determines, based on request details included in a delivery request regarding delivery or collection of a package registered by a delivery client, whether having a delivery person responding to the delivery request satisfies a condition regarding delivery efficiency of the delivery person ([0008] A first aspect of this disclosure is directed to an order assignment method, performable by a server. The method may include: determining a first delivery person corresponding to an order; estimating a delivery efficiency indicator corresponding to a delivery of the order performed by the first delivery person. [0069] The delivery efficiency indicator may include one or more of indicators including, but not limited to, an estimated completion time, an estimated delivery distance. [0166] If the user level corresponding to the order is lower than a preset level, the order may be determined to be a recallable order);
a generation unit that generates, based on a determination made by the determination unit that the condition is not satisfied, delivery instruction information regarding delivery or collection of the package by other delivery means different from the delivery person ([0086] After a recall operation on a recallable order is performed by the first delivery person, the recalled order may be considered as a new order, and may be reassigned to another delivery person. [0011] reassigning the order to a corresponding second delivery person may include: obtaining at least one candidate delivery person
based on a delivery address of the order; and designating a selected delivery person as the second delivery person if the delivery person selected from the at least one candidate delivery person through an order combining mechanism can accept the order and is different from the first delivery person).
Regarding Claim 11, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 1, as discussed above. Xian further discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether the condition is satisfied, based on a delivery area of the delivery person ([0087] Specifically, a delivery area that covers the recalled order may first be determined based on the delivery address of the recalled order, and then each delivery person in the delivery area may be obtained as a candidate delivery person based on location information of the delivery person. The at least one candidate delivery person may include the first delivery person to which the recalled order is originally assigned, or may not include the first delivery person to avoid the recalled order being reassigned to the same delivery person).
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.
I. Claims 2-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xian in view of Polega US 20220026926 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 1, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches further comprising a communication unit that transmits the delivery instruction information generated by the generation unit to an external device ([0030] the UAV server 134 communicates with UAVs 132a, 132b, 132c, 132d that it operates in order to send instructions, such as trip information and routes. The trip information includes a point of origin, a destination, and a route between the point of origin and the destination).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the delivery method of Xian a communication unit that transmits the delivery instruction information generated by the generation unit to an external device as taught by Polega since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a delivery method comprising a communication unit that transmits the delivery instruction information generated by the generation unit to an external device.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Xian and Polega teaches the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the external device includes an information terminal used by an administrator that manages an unmanned vehicle ([0030] the UAV server 134 communicates with UAVs 132a, 132b, 132c, 132d in order to receive data from the UAVs 132a, 132b, 132c, 132d. For example, the UAV server 134 receives identification information, UAV specifications, location information (for example, in real-time), and trip information) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 4, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 2, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the external device includes an unmanned vehicle ([0019] The LMDS includes a registration system that communicates with the providers to register land-based vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 5, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 4, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the delivery person delivers the package using a mobile body ([0069] the delivery may be performed by the first delivery person when he or she delivers, based on a specific delivery policy, all orders that require delivery, including the order currently assigned to the first delivery person) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 6, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 5, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the mobile body includes a vehicle that travels on a land route (([0019] The LMDS includes a registration system that communicates with the providers to register land-based vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 7, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 6, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the unmanned vehicle includes a mobile body that autonomously travels on the land route ([0021] the land-based transportation providers 136 include a land-based vehicle server 118 and land-based vehicles 120, 122. The land-based vehicle server 118 is associated with one or more land-based vehicle operators, such as autonomous vehicle operators, shipping companies, passenger transportation companies, ride-sharing companies, and delivery companies) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 8, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 6, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the unmanned vehicle includes a mobile body that autonomously travels on a route different from the land route ([0038] the UAV's route to a destination, or a portion of the route, may overlap with the one or more available vehicles' respective routes) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 9, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 8, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the unmanned vehicle includes an aircraft that autonomously flies on an air route ([0047] FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B illustrate an example aerial vehicle carrier 200, according to some implementations. As shown in FIG. 2A, the aerial vehicle carrier 200 is configured to receive and securely dock a UAV 202. And as shown in FIG. 2B, the aerial vehicle carrier 200 can be attached to a land-based vehicle 204) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 15, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 3, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Polega teaches wherein the generation unit generates other delivery instruction information regarding delivery or collection of the package to be performed by delivery means of the delivery person, based on a determination made by the determination unit that the condition is satisfied ([0092] To prevent the server from reassigning the recalled order to the original first delivery person, the recall request received from the first delivery person may further include an identifier of the first delivery person, so that the server may identify the delivery person who recalls the order, and avoid assigning the order to the same delivery person again) (see claim 2 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Xian and Polega teaches discloses the limitations recited in claim 15, as discussed above. Xian further teaches wherein the communication unit transmits the other delivery instruction information to a terminal used by the delivery person ([0059] the server may assign a corresponding first delivery person to an order immediately upon receiving the order. [0073] if the first delivery person receives an order associated with the recallable attribute, the order may be associated with a recallable operation option on a client of the first delivery person. Thus, when the first delivery person performs an operation on the order, displayed operation options may include the recallable operation option, so that, if necessary, the first delivery person may perform a recall operation on the order).
II. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xian in view of Bian US 20210312347 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 1, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Bian teaches wherein the determination unit determines whether the condition is satisfied, based on a receiving location of the package included in the request details ([0026] the path planning module 102 is configured to plan a distribution path of a distributor, and calculate a matching degree and an efficiency indicator based on the distribution path. As shown in FIG. 1, the distributor data, the order data, the environment data, the path data, and the like collected by the data collection module 101 are required to plan the distribution path, and therefore, a corresponding distribution path is planned based on data such as a distributor location and speed, starting location and destination location of an order, a distribution area environment, and a distribution area path. Further, an optimal distribution path may be planned based on the path optimization algorithm, and therefore an optimal matching indicator and efficiency indicator are calculated. The matching indicator indicates a degree of similarity between distribution paths of the target distributor before and after being assigned with the target order, and the efficiency indicator indicates an efficiency level of the target distributor distributing the target order. [0059] the efficiency indicator may be a value between 0 and 1. When the value is closer to 1, it indicates that the efficiency of the target distributor distributing the target order is higher. Otherwise, when the value is closer to 0, it indicates that the efficiency of the target distributor distributing the target order is lower. Generally, if a starting location or a destination location of a target order is relatively close to a starting location or a destination location of another order of the target distributor, the efficiency is relatively high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the determination unit that determines whether the condition is satisfied, based on a receiving location of the package included in the request details as taught in Bian with the delivery method of Xian with the motivation “so that an order pushed to the distributor conforms to the distributor's path situation as far as possible” (Bian [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 1, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Bian teaches wherein the determination unit determines that the condition is not satisfied when a prescribed demand that affects a delivery plan of the delivery person is included in the request details ([0026] the path planning module 102 is configured to plan a distribution path of a distributor, and calculate a matching degree and an efficiency indicator based on the distribution path. The path planning module 102 is configured to plan a distribution path of a distributor, and calculate a matching degree and an efficiency indicator based on the distribution path. As shown in FIG. 1, the distributor data, the order data, the environment data, the path data, and the like collected by the data collection module 101 are required to plan the distribution path, and therefore, a corresponding distribution path is planned based on data such as a distributor location and speed, a starting location and destination location of an order, a distribution area environment, and a distribution area path. [0020] In an embodiment, the distributor data may include distributor historical data and distributor real-time data. [0021] The distributor historical data may include at least one of the following: a historical average speed, a historical average number of orders taken per day, a historical average order-refusing rate per day, an area to which has been delivered, a distribution applicant that has applied for distribution, historical order taken proportions of orders of different distribution distances, historical order taken proportions of orders of different distribution time periods, or historical order taken proportions of orders of different distribution prices) (see claim 10 rejection above for combination rationale).
III. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xian in view of Polega and Laury US 20190228375 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 3, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Laury teaches wherein the determination unit determines that the condition is not satisfied when a delivery start location of the package is within a prescribed range from a location of the unmanned vehicle that is capable of being used for delivery of the package ([0074] the delivery management system 100 and/or the autonomous delivery vehicle 302 can update or adjust the vehicle trip detail 410 and/or the delivery route 216 while the autonomous delivery vehicle
302 is in transit and/or carrying out the delivery missions. For example, the delivery management system 100 can receive a further order and identify the details of the order as discussed above. The delivery management system 100 can evaluate whether to wait until the vehicle returns to assign the order to the vehicle, assign the order to another vehicle, or update the existing trip detail and the route. The delivery management system can evaluate based on calculating a cost (e.g., a cost in time/distance/
fuel or energy, a delay to remaining missions, an efficiency score, a remaining range/fuel or energy, or a combination thereof) according to the vehicle's current location or progress level. When the cost justifies updating an ongoing vehicle trip (such as when potential changes to the route satisfies one or more cost thresholds), the delivery management system 100 and/or the autonomous delivery vehicle 302 can adjust the vehicle trip detail 410 and the delivery route 216 to include the new mission).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the delivery method of Xian a determination unit that determines that the condition is not satisfied when a delivery start location of the package is within a prescribed range from a location of the unmanned vehicle that is capable of being used for delivery of the package as taught by Laury since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a delivery method comprising a determination unit that determines that the condition is not satisfied when a delivery start location of the package is within a prescribed range from a location of the unmanned vehicle that is capable of being used for delivery of the package.
Regarding Claim 14, Xian discloses the limitations recited in claim 3, as discussed above. Xian does not explicitly teach, however Laury teaches wherein the determination unit determines that the condition is not satisfied when a delivery start location of the package is same as a location of the unmanned vehicle that is capable of being used for delivery or collection of the package ([0074] the delivery management system 100 and/or the autonomous delivery vehicle 302 can update or adjust the vehicle trip detail 410 and/or the delivery route 216 while the autonomous delivery vehicle 302 is in transit and/or carrying out the delivery missions. For example, the delivery management system 100 can receive a further order and identify the details of the order as discussed above. The delivery management system 100 can evaluate whether to wait until the vehicle returns to assign the order to the vehicle, assign the order to another vehicle, or update the existing trip detail and the route. The delivery management system can evaluate based on calculating a cost (e.g., a cost in time/distance/fuel or energy, a delay to remaining missions, an efficiency score, a remaining range/fuel or energy, or a combination thereof) according to the vehicle's current location or progress level. When the cost justifies updating an ongoing vehicle trip (such as when potential changes to the route satisfies one or more cost thresholds), the delivery management system 100 and/or the autonomous delivery vehicle 302 can adjust the vehicle trip detail 410 and the delivery route 216 to include the new mission) (see claim 13 rejection above for combination rationale).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights