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 .
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
generates one or more delivery plans including delivery routes and delivery means of a package; and
that determines, as candidates of a service provider, one or more users estimated to be able to provide a service for collection and delivery of the package, wherein
upon approval of one user, as the service provider, from among the users determined as the candidates, selects and approves one of the delivery plans to a package collection point of the service provider from among the generated delivery plans.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “units, processing device and computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, units, processing device and computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (units, processing device and computer)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two;
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1
As per Claim 1 and 19-21, Muetzel teaches a control unit that generates one or more delivery plans including delivery routes and delivery means of a package (see para. 17); and
a candidate determination unit that determines, as candidates of a service provider, one or more users estimated to be able to provide a service for collection and delivery of the package (see para. 18), wherein
upon approval of one user, as the service provider, from among the users determined as the candidates, the control unit selects and approves one of the delivery plans to a package collection point of the service provider from among the generated delivery plans (see para. 17-18).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1 in view of Zagrofos U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170148313 A1
As per Claim 2, Muetzel teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zagrofos a notification generation unit that generates notification of an offer for the service provider, wherein the control unit approves the user determined as the candidate, as a service provider, based on response of the user to the offer (see para. 39). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Muetzel to include the teachings of Zagrofos to optimize package delivery as suggested by the cited portion of Zagrofos.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1 in view of Van Dyke U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0091710 A1
As per Claim 4, Muetzel teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Van Dyke wherein the candidate determination unit estimates locations of the drones by time and travel routes of the drones from the current locations to the package collection point based on the current locations and the determined schedule status for service provision of the drones, and determines one or more drones estimated to be able to provide the service as service provider candidates based on the estimated locations and the estimated travel routes of the drones (see para 68). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Muetzel to include the teachings of Van Dyke to optimize package delivery as suggested by the cited portion of Van Dyke.
As per Claim 5, Muetzel teaches the system of claim 4 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Van Dyke wherein the candidate determination unit estimates locations of the drones by time and travel routes of the drones from the current locations to the package collection point based on the current locations and the determined schedule status for service provision of the drones, and determines one or more drones estimated to be able to provide the service as service provider candidates based on the estimated locations and the estimated travel routes of the drones (see para. 68-69). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 6, Muetzel teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Van Dyke wherein the candidate determination unit determines one or more of the users in order of shorter travel route to the package collection point as the service provider candidates from among the users estimated to be able to travel to the package collection point within the package collecting time zone and to be able to perform delivery of the package to a destination (see para. 69). The motivation is the same opined above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1 in view of Van Dyke U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0091710 A1 in further view of Roherty et al. U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20210262817 A1
As per Claim 7, Muetzel teaches the system of claim 5 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Van Dyke wherein the candidate determination unit determines one or more of the users in order of a parameter to the package collection point as the service provider candidates from among the users estimated to be able to travel to the package collection point within the package collecting time zone and to be able to perform delivery of the package to a destination (see par. 68-69, the Examiner is interpreting a drone operating in a Zip +4 as having locations in the same time zone). Van Dyke does not explicitly teach earliest estimated arrival time. Roherty describes an earliest arrival time for delivery vehicles (see para. 79). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was of filed to modify the systems of Muetzel, Van Dyke to include the system of Roherty to determine delivery weighting.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1 in view of Van Dyke U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0091710 A1 in further view of Zagrofos U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170148313 A1
As per Claim 9, Muetzel in view of Van Dyke teach the system of claim 5 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zagrofos
a notification generation unit that generates notification of an offer for the service provider, wherein the control unit notifies one user, from among the users determined as the candidates, of the offer (see para. 39-41). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Muetzel and Van Dyke to include the teachings of Zagrofos to optimize package delivery as suggested by the cited portion of Zagrofos.
As per Claim 10, Muetzel in view of Van Dyke teach the system of claim 5 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zagrofos
a notification generation unit that generates notification of an offer for the service provider, wherein the control unit notifies one or more predetermined number of users, from among the users determined as the candidates, of the offer (see para. 39-41). The motivation is the same as opined above.
As per Claim 11, Muetzel in view of Van Dyke teach the system of claim 5 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zagrofos wherein the control unit approves one of the users who responded to the offer at earliest, as the service provider, from among the users determined as the candidates and notified of the offer (see para. 39-41, the Examiner is interpreting the one person that responded as the earliest).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muetzel U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20150046362 A1 in view of Van Dyke U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0091710 A1 in further view of Zagrofos U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170148313 A1 and Rajkhowa U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20200342395 A1
As per Claim 12, Muetzel in view of Van Dyke teach the system of claim 11 as described above. Muetzel does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Rajkhowa
wherein the control unit approves the user who responded to the offer within a certain time period after notification of the offer, as the service provider (see para. 5 and 67). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Muetzel and Van Dyke to include the teachings of Rajkhowa to optimize delivery as suggested by the cited portion of Rajkhowa.
Claims 3, 8 and 13-18 are not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights