DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed and preliminary amendments submitted on 26 December 2024. This communication is the first action on merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 3, 6-7, and 12-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, and 16-20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application 18/878,905 filed on 26 December 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2023/024016, which claims priority from Japan application JP2022-105540 filed on 30 June 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 22 September 2025, 26 December 2024 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Office recommends Information Processing System, Information Processing Device, Information Processing Method, and Program for Processing a Receiving Location for Relay-Transports.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) are: acquisition unit in claims 1-18, setting unit in claims 1-18, generation unit in claims 15-17, communication unit in claims 16-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8:
The term “closest” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There are no bounds in the claim with respect to what the relay location is ‘closest’ to. For the purpose of examination, the Office is interpreting this as ‘closest to an intermediate point’ (Applicant Specification pg. 7).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20:
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 recite a system; claim 18 recites a device; claim 19 recites a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG).
Claim 20 recites a program. The claims do not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and do not satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). However, the claim can be amended to fall within a statutory category. See MPEP 2106.04(II). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 and 18 recite sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target. Independent claim 19 recite setting, based on the acquired location information, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities and mental processes. First, the limitations of sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target; setting, based on the acquired location information, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target; and a setting function that sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition function, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships (or interactions between people), and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes setting a receiving location based on the acquired location information…; and following rules or instructions includes setting a receiving location based on the acquired location information… The presence of generic computer components such as a setting unit (i.e. server, see Applicant Specification Fig 4), computer does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target; setting, based on the acquired location information, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target; and a setting function that sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition function, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target as drafted is/are a process that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a setting unit (i.e. server, see Applicant Specification Fig 4), computer, and a program nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, setting in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating location information and judging a receiving location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities / mental processes in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. setting unit, computer, program) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of acquiring and its steps of an acquisition unit that acquires location information related to a delivery person; acquiring location information related to a delivery person; an acquisition function that acquires location information related to a delivery person are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent setting), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the acquisition unit (generic computer, i.e. server, see Applicant Specification Fig 4) is only being used as a tool in the acquiring, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding acquiring more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. 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.
Next, the additional element of a first mobile body in the limitations (e.g. where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. mobile body delivery), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, 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 combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (setting unit, computer, program), applied to a field of use (mobile body delivery); and adding high-level extra-solution activities (data gathering). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a setting unit, computer, program to perform setting a receiving location based on the location information… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the acquiring are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent setting), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. acquisition unit) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these acquiring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding a first mobile body does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. mobile body delivery). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0014] describing the additional element of mobile bodies as manned mobile bodies and unmanned vehicles at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead, the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities / mental processes ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / commercial / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to set a relay point for delivery), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology-based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 18-20, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-17. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitation wherein the transportation target is delivered by the delivery person using a second mobile body is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a second mobile body here represents using an other machine operating in its ordinary capacity (i.e. a mobile body to provide transport / delivery), recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea using an other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks; and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use (i.e. mobile body delivery), which does not integrate a judicial exception to into a practical application or provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0014] describing the additional element of mobile bodies as manned mobile bodies and unmanned vehicles at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: First, the limitation wherein a delivery area of the delivery person includes a plurality of relay locations merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation the setting unit sets one relay location among the relay locations as the receiving location is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: First, the limitation wherein the location information includes a location of the delivery person narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location that satisfies a prescribed condition with respect to the location of the delivery person is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: The limitation wherein the setting unit sets the receiving location based on the location of the delivery person and a delivery route of the delivery person is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: First, the limitation wherein the location information includes a next scheduled delivery location of the delivery person, narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location that satisfies a prescribed condition with respect to the next schedule delivery location of the delivery person is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitations wherein the location information includes a relay location designated by the delivery person, and the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, the relay location designated by the delivery person are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental processes (judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the first mobile body includes a vehicle or an aircraft represents an additional element (field of use of vehicles / aircraft) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0021] describing the additional element that mobile bodies may include a vehicle such as a light van, motorcycle, bicycle, kickboard, aircraft, or vessel on a waterway at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: The limitation wherein the first mobile body includes a vehicle that is used by another delivery person represents an additional element (field of use of vehicles) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0012] describing the additional element that of another delivery person using a vehicle at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation wherein the second mobile body includes a vehicle represents an additional element (field of use of vehicles) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0021] describing the additional element that mobile bodies may include a vehicle such as a light van, motorcycle, bicycle, kickboard, aircraft, or vessel on a waterway at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: The limitation wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, an intermediate point between the delivery person and the other delivery person is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitation wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location closest to an intermediate point is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: The limitation wherein the setting unit sets the receiving location in accordance with types of mobile bodies used by the delivery person and the other delivery person is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the setting unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15: The limitation of a generation unit that generates delivery instruction information based on the receiving location set by the setting unit is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the generation unit (i.e. server, per Applicant Specification Fig 4) is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16: The limitation of a communication unit that transmits the delivery instruction information generated by the generation unit to an external device represents an additional element (extra solution transmitting data; the communication unit is using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17: The limitation wherein, when a prescribed demand is included in request details included in a delivery request of the transportation target, the communication unit transmits notification information corresponding to the prescribed demand to a terminal used by the delivery person represents an additional element (extra solution transmitting data; the communication unit and terminal are using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 18-20, and the dependent claims 2-17 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to a program. Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 6, 9-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al.
Claim 1:
Berdinis, as shown, discloses the following:
An information processing system comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires location information related to a delivery person (Berdinis Fig 1, ¶[0026], ¶[0053], ¶[0082] details one or more servers obtaining the current location of shipping trucks from GPS receivers of the driver’s device or the GPS receiver of the truck); and
a setting unit that sets, based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit, a receiving location indicating a location where the delivery person receives a transportation target from a first mobile body that relay-transports the transportation target (Berdinis Fig 1, Fig 8-9, ¶[0026], ¶[0082-84] details one or more servers determining a relay point where the shipment can be exchanged based on the data associated with the shipment request and location data associated with one or more trucks).
Claim 2:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the transportation target is delivered by the delivery person using a second mobile body (Berdinis Fig 8, ¶[0030], ¶[0082] details after the trucks meet at the rally point the second truck 2 carries the shipment in trailer 1 along a second portion of the route towards the shipment delivery location, and a human controls various aspects on-board the truck).
Claim 6:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the location information includes a next scheduled delivery location of the delivery person (Berdinis ¶[0030], ¶[0038-39] details receiving data corresponding to future shipment to be executed by the truck and/or driver), and
the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location that satisfies a prescribed condition with respect to the next schedule delivery location of the delivery person (Berdinis ¶[0084], ¶[0116] details dividing the shipments into sub-portions and setting the relay location based on the estimated time of arrival of a truck at a particular location and maintaining that trucks never travel beyond a predefined distance of 150 miles and/or adjusting the relay locations and times in real-time based on expected future locations of the trucks, and the expected future location of the truck is based on the execution of a prior shipment request, i.e. the truck / driver next scheduled delivery location).
Claim 9:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the first mobile body includes a vehicle or an aircraft (Berdinis Fig 8, ¶[0025], ¶[0082] details the first mobile body is a truck, or may be an airplane).
Claim 10:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the first mobile body includes a vehicle that is used by another delivery person (Berdinis Fig 8-9, ¶[0038], ¶[0041], ¶[0077] details the shipment is delivered using multiple trucks and different drivers suitable to execute a shipping request).
Claim 11:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the second mobile body includes a vehicle (Berdinis Fig 8, ¶[0082] details the second mobile body is a truck).
Claim 12:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Berdinis also discloses the following:
wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, an intermediate point between the delivery person and the other delivery person (Berdinis Fig 8, ¶[0077], ¶[0082] details determining the relay point based on common locations to stop and an intermediate point between the two trucks).
Claim 15:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Berdinis also discloses the following:
a generation unit that generates delivery instruction information based on the receiving location set by the setting unit (Berdinis ¶[0082], ¶[0118], claim 1 details a processor transmitting a relay instruction and recommended routes for the itineraries to each carrier device of the multiple carriers, and the relay location is established based on the obtained location information of the trucks, e.g. their current locations).
Claim 16:
Berdinis, as shown above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Berdinis also discloses the following:
a communication unit that transmits the delivery instruction information generated by the generation unit to an external device (Berdinis ¶[0118], claim 1 details a processor transmitting a relay instruction and recommended routes for the itineraries to each carrier device of the multiple carriers).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
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 non-obviousness.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0005240 A1 to Ko et al.
Claim 3:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein a delivery area of the delivery person includes a plurality of relay locations, and
the setting unit sets one relay location among the relay locations as the receiving location.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0064], ¶[0082], ¶[0086], ¶[0186] details the shipment system can select the relay point based on common locations to stop, locations and their proximity to roadways (i.e. setting unit sets one relay location among the relay locations as the receiving location); and that trucks may have rules to never travel beyond a specified or predetermined distance such as 150 miles from a home location (i.e. delivery area of the delivery person), highly suggesting but not explicitly stating a delivery area of the delivery person includes a plurality of relay stations. However, Ko teaches this remaining feature, with a plurality of candidate options for performing relay between delivery drivers at multiple relay places for one area (e.g. 307-309) to another (Ko Fig 17, ¶[0083], ¶[0088], ¶[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a delivery area of the delivery person includes a plurality of relay locations, and the setting unit sets one relay location among the relay locations as the receiving location as taught by Ko with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation that “efficiently deals with delivery requirements where a loading place, an off-loading place… and a work shift of a driver fluidly change” (Ko ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a delivery area of the delivery person includes a plurality of relay locations, and the setting unit sets one relay location among the relay locations as the receiving location as taught by Ko in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4:
Berdinis in view of Ko, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. Berdinis also teaches the following:
wherein the location information includes a location of the delivery person (Berdinis ¶[0053], ¶[0082], ¶[0189] details obtaining the current location of the delivery trucks / drivers), and
the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location that satisfies a prescribed condition with respect to the location of the delivery person (Berdinis ¶[0064], ¶[0082], ¶[0086] details the matching engine can determine the relay point based on data associated with the trucks including their current locations, and data of the shipment request; and does not allow the trucks to travel beyond a specified distance from a home location such as 150 miles).
Claim 5:
Berdinis in view of Ko, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 4. Berdinis also teaches the following:
wherein the setting unit sets the receiving location based on the location of the delivery person and a delivery route of the delivery person (Berdinis ¶[0038-39], ¶[0082] details the matching engine can determine the relay point based on data associated with the available trucks including their current location and the route the trucks are on or expected to travel on; and the matching engine determining the availability of trucks based on their current or scheduled future locations to complete a previous shipment).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0027848 A1 to Kashi et al.
Claim 7:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Berdinis does not explicitly state, but Kashi teaches the following:
wherein the location information includes a relay location designated by the delivery person (Kashi ¶[0091-92] details a courier chooses the respective drop off / pick-up location locker for delivery transfer to another courier / recipient), and
the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, the relay location designated by the delivery person (Kashi ¶[0086], ¶[0093] details the system tracks each smart locker device utilized by courier devices during the chain of custody as the package travels through the transportation chain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the location information includes a relay location designated by the delivery person; and the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, the relay location designated by the delivery person as taught by Kashi with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation to “minimize cost pain points such as those posted by the last mile dilemma” (Kashi ¶[0086]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the location information includes a relay location designated by the delivery person; and the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, the relay location designated by the delivery person as taught by Kashi in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US patent publication 6,195,611 B1 to Sakamoto et al.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Alternate rejections are provided for claim 8 based on different interpretations of a ‘closest’ relay location to further demonstrate obviousness.
Claim 8:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 6. With respect to the following:
wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0082] details selecting a relay location as an intermediate location along the shipment route and considering proximities to roadways, but does not explicitly state that the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location. However, Sakamoto teaches this limitation, identifying a relay point N on routes WSN and WNE, where N is closest to a straight line RSE connecting the departure point S and the destination point E, then this route is selected through the relay point N as a primary destination route (Sakamoto col 5 ln 10-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location as taught by Sakamoto with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation to “find the shortest route from the departure point to the destination point for a short processing time” (Sakamoto col 3 ln 9-11). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location as taught by Sakamoto in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 8 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claims 6 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0302184 A1 to Hayama.
Claim 8:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 6. With respect to the following:
wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0082] details selecting a relay location as an intermediate location along the shipment route and considering proximities to roadways, but does not explicitly state that the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location. However, Hayama teaches this limitation, identifying a transfer point closest to the midpoint (Hayama ¶[0087], ¶[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location as taught by Hayama with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation of “generating a delivery plan for mobile units” and “reduce the possibility that delivery of delivery objects will end in failure due to depletion of moving energy of mobile units” (Hayama ¶[0002], ¶[0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the relay location that satisfies the prescribed condition includes a closest relay location as taught by Hayama in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 10. With respect to the following:
wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location closest to an intermediate point.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0082] details selecting a relay location as an intermediate location along the shipment route and considering proximities to roadways, but does not explicitly setting the relay location closest to an intermediate point. However, Hayama teaches this limitation, identifying a transfer point closest to the midpoint (Hayama ¶[0087], ¶[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location closest to an intermediate point as taught by Hayama with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation of “generating a delivery plan for mobile units” and “reduce the possibility that delivery of delivery objects will end in failure due to depletion of moving energy of mobile units” (Hayama ¶[0002], ¶[0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the setting unit sets, as the receiving location, a relay location closest to an intermediate point as taught by Hayama in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of “Relay network design in freight transportation systems” (2002) to Tarab et al.
Claim 14:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 10. With respect to the following:
wherein the setting unit sets the receiving location in accordance with types of mobile bodies used by the delivery person and the other delivery person.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0082] details a computer setting the relay location for vehicles used by delivery carriers (i.e. setting unit sets the receiving location in accordance with mobile bodies used by the delivery person and other delivery person), but does not explicitly state setting the receiving location in accordance with types of mobile bodies used by the delivery person and the other delivery person. However, Tarab teaches this remaining limitation, using relay points as linkages between two different modes of transportation, with a facility where consignment is transferred from a truck to a railroad carrier as a relay point in multi-modal transportation network (Tarab pg. 406 ¶ beginning “In freight transportation networks, the distribution centers…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting the receiving location in accordance with types of mobile bodies used as taught by Tarab with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation that “relay points also form an essential part of multi-modal, including inter-modal transportation” (Tarab pg. 406 ¶ beginning “In freight transportation networks, the distribution centers…”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sets the receiving location in accordance with types of mobile bodies used as taught by Tarab in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0248555 A1 to Berdinis et al., as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0366217 A1 to Hanlon.
Claim 17:
Berdinis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 16. With respect to the following:
wherein, when a prescribed demand is included in request details included in a delivery request of the transportation target, the communication unit transmits notification information corresponding to the prescribed demand to a terminal used by the delivery person.
Berdinis, as shown in ¶[0028], ¶[0082], claim 1 details obtaining data related to a shipment request (e.g. pickup location, delivery location, and other characteristics or parameters), and transmitting the instructions to each carrier device of the multiple carriers (i.e. transmitting notification information to a terminal used by the delivery person), but does not explicitly state a prescribed demand is included in the request details in a delivery request of the transportation target, and transmitting notification corresponding to the prescribed demand to a terminal used by the delivery person. However, Hanlon teaches this limitation, receiving a delivery request for delivery to a smart home and generating smart home delivery information (i.e. prescribed demand) which includes generating an access code, and the carrier device receives the access code when the smart doorbell has been rung and nobody has opened the door (Hanlon Fig 3-4, ¶[0039], ¶[0041-43], ¶[0059-60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when a prescribed demand is included in request details included in a delivery request of the transportation target, the communication unit transmits notification information corresponding to the prescribed demand to a terminal used by the delivery person as taught by Hanlon with the teachings of Berdinis, with the motivation of solving the problem that “missed deliveries, re-scheduling of deliveries, signature requirements, and theft of items are also rising” (Hanlon ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein, when a prescribed demand is included in request details included in a delivery request of the transportation target, the communication unit transmits notification information corresponding to the prescribed demand to a terminal used by the delivery person as taught by Hanlon in the system of Berdinis, 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 were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (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 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights