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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 26 December 2024.
Claims 5 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
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) is/are:
“An acquisition unit that acquires schedule information” in claim 1-10.
“a designation unit the designates… a delivery slot” in claim 1-10.
“An acquisition unit that acquires schedule information” in claim 11.
“a designation unit the designates… a delivery slot” in claim 11.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 13 encompasses software given the claim's broadest reasonable interpretation. Such media have been held to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Examiner notes claim(s) 13 has/have been interpreted as not being directed to a statutory category. The following rejection below has been provided as if claim 13 has/have been interpreted as being directed to a statutory category.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 12 is drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 13 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-13 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
acquire schedule information regarding a travel schedule of a recipient who receives a package; and
designate, based on the schedule information, a delivery slot corresponding to a scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at a receiving location of the package among a plurality of delivery slots included in a delivery plan of a mobile body used for delivery of the package.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses delivering packages to a recipient. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing personal interactions between people, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): an acquisition unit and a designation unit. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 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 element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 and 6-10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 2-4 and 6-10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5 further include(s) the additional element(s): “an aircraft”. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., aircrafts) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 5 is/are ineligible.
Claim(s) 11 is/are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly claim(s) 11 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim 12 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 12 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 12 recites the following additional elements: a computer. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 13 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 13 recites the following additional elements: a computer. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 8015023 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an information processing system comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires schedule information regarding a travel schedule of a recipient who receives a package; (Col. 8, line 8-27 “the application server 102 may determine that an opportunity for alternative package delivery rendezvous exists […] based on a known history or pattern of movement of the recipient mobile terminal 106 or based on a recipient schedule stored in the preferences 116.”) and
a designation unit that designates, based on the schedule information, a delivery slot corresponding to a scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at a receiving location of the package among a plurality of delivery slots included in a delivery plan of a mobile body used for delivery of the package. (Col. 6, line 56- Col. 7 ll. 9 “the notification message 206 is sent with enough lead time to permit the recipient to travel to the package delivery location”; Col. 11, line 32-41 “At block 286, the delivery schedule is determined based on the analysis of the recipient history information, for example by the application server 102. At block 288, the schedule is provided to the delivery service, for example by the application server 102 sending a schedule message to the delivery mobile terminal 106 or the delivery dispatching terminal.”; Fig. 7; Examiner notes the deliverer and recipient meet at the delivery point at the designated time based on both of their schedules.)
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
wherein the schedule information includes information regarding travel means of the recipient, (Col. 8, line 8-27 “the application server 102 may determine that an opportunity for alternative package delivery rendezvous exists […] based on a known history or pattern of movement of the recipient mobile terminal 106”; Col. 6, ll. 56- Col. 7, ll. 9 “the application server 102 may determine an estimated travel time for the recipient to travel to the target delivery location, for example based on information in the history 118 associated with the recipient. For example, the application server 102 may store information about the recipient's average travel time of the recipient during specific time intervals on specific days”) and
the designation unit designates the delivery slot according to the travel means acquired by the acquisition unit. (Col. 11, line 32-41 “At block 286, the delivery schedule is determined based on the analysis of the recipient history information, for example by the application server 102.”)
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires location information of the recipient, (Col. 11, ll. 26-31 “At block 282, the location of the recipient is determined”; Col. 8, line 8-27 “the application server 102 may determine that an opportunity for alternative package delivery rendezvous exists […] based on a known history or pattern of movement of the recipient mobile terminal 106 or based on a recipient schedule stored in the preferences 116.”; step 282 of Fig. 7) and
the designation unit designates the delivery slot based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Col. 8, line 8-27 “the application server 102 may determine that an opportunity for alternative package delivery rendezvous exists […] based on a known history or pattern of movement of the recipient mobile terminal 106 or based on a recipient schedule stored in the preferences 116.”)
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
wherein the receiving location is included in a delivery route of the mobile body. (Col. 11, line 32-41 “At block 288, the schedule is provided to the delivery service, for example by the application server 102 sending a schedule message to the delivery mobile terminal 106 or the delivery dispatching terminal.”; Col. 11, ll. 65- Col. 12, ll. 10 explains the delivery driver meets the recipient at the delivery point to rendezvous.)
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee further teaches:
wherein the delivery slot is set for each of a plurality of receiving location candidates, (Col. 6, ll. 12-31 “The preferences 116 may indicate a preferred package delivery location for different times and different days of the week.”) and
the designation unit designates, as the receiving location of the package, one receiving location candidate among the receiving location candidates. (Col. 2, ll. 45-67 “the application server can use a profile provided by the recipient, for example preferences about when and where a package should be delivered, to determine a recommended […] delivery location”)
Claim 11:
Claim(s) 11 is/are directed to an information processing device. Claim(s) 11 recites limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 11 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1, respectively.
Claim 12:
Claim(s) 12 is/are directed to an information processing method. Claim(s) 12 recites limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 12 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1, respectively. Claim 12 further recites a computer (Col. 13, ll. 20-31 “computer” of Lee).
Claim 13:
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a program. Claim(s) 13 recites limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 13 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1, respectively. Claim 13 further recites a computer (Col. 13, ll. 20-31 “computer” of Lee).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US B1) in view of Richardson (US 20170286905 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee does not teach:
wherein the mobile body includes an aircraft that flies on an air route, and
the receiving location includes a standby location of the aircraft.
However, Richardson teaches:
wherein the mobile body includes an aircraft that flies on an air route, (Paragraph [0030] “delivery vehicle 180 is […] an airborne vehicle, a drone”) and
the receiving location includes a standby location of the aircraft. (Paragraph [0069] “parcel box 310 may include a door, opening, hatch, or chute on a top surface of parcel box 310 to better accommodate delivery from a flying delivery vehicle, such as a drone, which may land on the top surface of parcel box 310”)
This operation of Richardson is applicable to the system of Lee as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering an item. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lee to incorporate the mobile body being an aircraft and the receiving location being a standby location as taught by Richardson. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lee in order to perform a delivery when the user is not home (see paragraph [0004] of Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Richardson teaches the information processing system according to claim 5. Lee does not teach:
wherein a storage box for storing the package is placed at the standby location of the aircraft, and the designation unit designates the delivery slot based on availability of the storage box.
However, Richardson teaches:
wherein a storage box for storing the package is placed at the standby location of the aircraft, and the designation unit designates the delivery slot based on availability of the storage box. (Paragraph [0084] “a computer system of a delivery service may electronically check or query the status of a parcel box at a delivery location using one or more networks before a parcel is loaded onto the delivery vehicle. If the computer system determines that the parcel box is available, empty or partially empty, the parcel is loaded onto the delivery vehicle for delivery. If the parcel box is not available, the parcel is not loaded onto the delivery vehicle”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lee is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 8015023 B1) in view of McDaniel (US 20230306358 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the information processing system according to claim 1. Lee does not teach:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires information regarding the package, and
the designation unit designates the delivery slot based on a type of the package included in the information regarding the package.
However McDaniel teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires information regarding the package, (Paragraph [0054] “At 226, […] The thermal excursion can be predicted based on a predicted time period for a delivery of the print material supply to the location and weather information for the location.”; step 226 of Fig. 2) and
the designation unit designates the delivery slot based on a type of the package included in the information regarding the package. (Paragraph [0055] “if a thermal excursion is predicted, the computing device can, at 230, determine whether an unsafe delivery of the print material supply is expected to occur”; Paragraph [0056] “If an unsafe delivery of the print material supply is determined, the computing device can cause the print material supply to be provided thermal protection.”; Paragraph [0045] “causing the thermal protection to be provided can include rescheduling the predicted time period for the delivery.”; step 232 of Fig. 2)
This operation of McDaniel is applicable to the system of Lee as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering an item to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of McDaniel to incorporate designating the delivery slot based on acquired package information as taught by McDaniel. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lee in order to facilitate safe delivery to a location (see paragraph [0016] of McDaniel).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of McDaniel teaches the information processing system according to claim 7. Lee does not teach:
wherein, when the type of the package corresponds to an environment of the receiving location, the designation unit designates a delivery slot that allows the mobile body to arrive at the receiving location before the scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at the receiving location.
However, McDaniel teaches:
wherein, when the type of the package corresponds to an environment of the receiving location, the designation unit designates a delivery slot that allows the mobile body to arrive at the receiving location before the scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at the receiving location. (Paragraph [0056] “If an unsafe delivery of the print material supply is not determined, the computing device can confirm shipment of the print material supply at 228.”; Fig. 2 shows that if the delivery is determined to be safe at step 230, the delivery will not be rescheduled at step 232. Paragraph [0029 further explains that the user can choose to get the package delivered to their mailbox when they are not home.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lee is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of McDaniel teaches the information processing system according to claim 7. Lee does not teach:
wherein, when the type of the package does not correspond to an environment of the receiving location, the designation unit designates a delivery slot that includes the scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at the receiving location or a delivery slot that allows the mobile body to arrive at the receiving location at a time after the scheduled time.
However, McDaniel teaches:
wherein, when the type of the package does not correspond to an environment of the receiving location, the designation unit designates a delivery slot that includes the scheduled time at which the recipient arrives at the receiving location or a delivery slot that allows the mobile body to arrive at the receiving location at a time after the scheduled time. (Paragraph [0029] “the computing device 102 can determine that since a user has indicated they are not home until 4 PM on Fridays, and that because the forecasted temperature (95° F.) exceeds the given temperature range (e.g., 40° F. to 80° F.), the print material supply 108 would be exposed to direct sunlight as well as a temperature outside the given temperature range for 3 hours, and that as a result, the an unsafe delivery is predicted to occur.” Paragraph [0056] “If an unsafe delivery of the print material supply is determined, the computing device can cause the print material supply to be provided thermal protection.”; Paragraph [0045] “causing the thermal protection to be provided can include rescheduling the predicted time period for the delivery. […] The computing device can cause the predicted time period for delivery to be rescheduled from September 10.sup.th (e.g., when the forecast high temperature is 95° F.) to September 11.sup.th (e.g., when the forecast high temperature is 80° F.).”; step 232 of Fig. 2)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Lee is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628