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
Due to communications filed 6/7/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-22 are amended. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transportation means” in claims 1, and 20-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more.
In addition, the claims 1, and 20-22 recite a judicial exception.
With regard to Step 2A, claims 1, and 20-22 recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing interactions between people or commercial entities, including managing and coordinating a package-transportation service. The limitations of notifying a prospective service provider of an offer, approving the service provider, displaying package-transportation information, generating a transportation plan and route, and coordinating release of the package constitute management and coordination of a transportation service.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1, and 20-22 are not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The communication interface, processor, memory, and display merely perform their ordinary computer functions of communicating, processing, storing, and displaying information. Generating a transportation plan and route merely computerizes the logistical activity. Although the claim further recites controlling a physical holding device to release the package, the claim does not recite a particular technological improvement to the holding device, its control mechanism, or package-transportation technology. The physical device therefore merely provides a conventional physical implementation of the transportation-management activity.
With regard to Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed processor, memory, communication interface, display, and physical holding device are recited at a high level and perform their conventional functions. The claim does not identify an unconventional arrangement or technological improvement that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, because the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, fails to integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and does not recite significantly more under Step 2B, claims 1, and 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-19 are also directed to same grouping of “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The additional elements of the method of claims 2-10, media content items of claim 2-5, 8-11; content presentation interface of claim 9; display of claim 10; first detail interface of claim 11; electronic device of claim 19 and 21-27; computer readable storage medium of claim 20; media content item of claims 21-27; the content presentation interface of claims 25-26; display area of claim 27 are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAGAMI (JP 2020024732 A), and further in view of RICCI et al (KR 20180036914 A), and further in view of BROWN et al (WO 2014124529 A1).
As per claim 1, TAGAMI discloses:
a communication interface configured to notify a service provider terminal used by a service provider candidate, of an offer for a service provider in accordance with a condition on a service of collection and
transportation of a package by another different transportation means, the service provider being
capable of providing the service of collection and transportation of the package, ([10] Receiving
information such as desired collection / delivery date and time regarding the collection / delivery case of
each client inputted by accessing the server via the Internet from the plurality of requester terminals,
registering in the database for each case; For a new case registered in the database, a contract made by
referring to the database in the server via the Internet from the delivery terminal for a case in which the
area of the requester's address among the cases is in charge. In addition to receiving the application and
registering it in the database, notify the application terminal to the client terminal of the new project for
the application; [12] Regarding the new case registered in the database, the service provider terminal
for the case in which the area of the requester's address is the responsible area among the cases made
by referring to the database in the server via the Internet. Upon receiving the contract application,
registering it in the database and notifying the application terminal to the requester terminal of the new
case for the application... Thus, the service providing system is characterized in that the approved service provider provides the service relating to the new matter).
a processor coupled to the communication interface, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to approve a service provider candidate capable of providing the service of collection and transportation of the package as a service provider, ([12]: From the client terminal that received the notification of the application for the new matter, a notification of which of the applied deliverers is approved is received via the Internet); and
a display configured to display notification of information on the collection and transportation of the package, ([12]: and a notification to that effect is sent to the terminal of the approved deliverer);
TAGAMI does not disclose the following, however RICCI et al discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a transportation plan that includes a transportation route, (RICCI et al (KR 20180036914 A): The centralized system comprises the following steps: - a first step by the transport provider or by the end user to request and transmit the data necessary to prepare the flight plan;- a guidance script created by a mobile telephone provider or by a single command center for route assignment and control, the script being generated based on the data required to route the vehicle; step);
a transportation route for the package by said another different transportation means to a package collection point, (RICCI et al (KR 20180036914 A): the fourth step of the installation of the script / program within the guidance device of the transportation means by the transport supplier or by the end user);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by RICCI et al in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
and upon approval of the service provider, control a physical holding device at the package collection point to release the package to the service provider.
BROWN et al (WO 2014124529 A1) [0103] For example, key sets may be made available automatically to approved providers of cleaning, shopping, delivery, repair or other services, requested by the user. As another example, property-booking companies, such as rental car companies or rental home companies, may build a system where access rules are generated automatically or for approval by the administrative user based on booking data as bookings occur; [0104] In addition to individual service requests, ongoing service requests might be fulfilled. As a non-limiting example, the key exchange service might provide users with the option to have packages delivered to a virtual address. Such packages may then be delivered into the user's home by delivery personnel who are automatically given access to the user's key upon arrival of a package.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by BROWN et al in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 2, TAGAMI does not disclose:
acquire position information and information on providing schedule status of
a determined service of the service provider candidate, from the service provider terminal, and
determine a transmission destination of notification of the offer by the communication
interface based on the position information of the service provider candidate, the providing schedule status of the service, and travel means, preliminarily stored in a storage unit, of the service provider candidate.
However, RICCI discloses: (In this case, the instant position and altitude from the SAPR are compared
with the data contained within the script according to the control algorithm (Figures 5 / 505-504). The
mission then proceeds without any special additional action within the assigned dedicated channel,
while if the legitimate interception system has resulted in a tolerance outside the tolerance as defined
by the mobile telephone provider (GX) / 407), the mission should proceed with a stepwise expansion of
the various actions of the emergency (Figure 9 / 908-909). In fact, when the mobile phone provider GX
discovers, some deviations that are predetermined and different from those contained within the script,
in relation to parameters: speed, deceleration, acceleration, path, positioning, altitude, (GX) that will
automatically and / or passively implement the most appropriate emergency action depending on the
location of the mobile device. (U-X) can make an appointment with the recipient on an expected
delivery schedule and at the point of meeting, in advance, during the customer management of the
transportation service provider. In addition, the customer management can provide the recipient with a
unique code of duty that should eventually be delivered to the SAPR by the recipient upon delivery of
the envelope. Thus, the SAPR is programmed and prepared in accordance with the script at its agreed
delivery point and agreed upon point of view, in accordance with its flight plan. The SAPR (8/803) then
takes off and moves toward the destination in accordance with the schedule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 3, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the information on the service of the collection and transportation of the package includes
current-position-as-origin task information being information on the service estimated, by the processor to be capable of being provided by the service provider candidate in accordance with at least any
one or more of a distance to a package collection point with a current position of the service provider
candidate being an origin, a travel route and a travel time.
However, RICCI (KR 20180036914 A) discloses: (In this case, the instant position and altitude from the
SAPR are compared with the data contained within the script according to the control algorithm
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 4, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the information on the service of the collection and transportation of the package includes
determined-task-as-origin information being information on the service estimated, by the processor,
to be capable of being provided by the service provider candidate in accordance with at least any one or
more of a distance to a package collection point in another service with a package collection point or a
delivery destination in the determined service of the service provider being an origin, a travel route, and
a travel time.
However, RICCI discloses: Brief Description of the Invention: Through a centralized system, the present
invention creates an induction system that manages transportation in adverse environmental conditions
or in congested areas. The transportation service provider makes advance request / communication to
the system supervising the control and guidance of the SAPR to obtain and achieve the travel route /
delivery. At this stage, the shipping service provider delivers the origin, destination, date and the desired
time for delivery completion. The control system verifies the same request and evaluates whether the
path represents incompatibility with other previous driving requests / paths. In terms of inspection, the
system accepts or provides an alternative
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 5, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to generate one or more transportation plans including a transportation route for the package of the other different transportation means and transportation means to the package collection point, approve a user determined to be the service provider candidate as the service provider based on acceptance of the offer by the user, and upon the approval of the service provider, select and approve one transportation plan among the transportation plans
However, RICCI discloses verifies the route designation time allocated for the dedicated channel (see
Figure 4/405). Once validation of the mission is verified, the central control system (EO) approves the
mission and delivers it to the mobile phone provider
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 6, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a service providable condition indicating a condition on which each user is capable of providing a service, and select a user satisfying the service providable condition among the users determined to be the candidates and approves the user as the
service provider, ([12] Regarding the new case registered in the database, the service provider terminal
for the case in which the area of the requester's address is the responsible area among the cases made
by referring to the database in the server via the Internet. Upon receiving the contract application,
registering it in the database and notifying the application terminal to the requester terminal of the new
case for the application... Thus, the service providing system is characterized in that the approved service provider provides the service relating to the new matter; [12]: From the client terminal that received the notification of the application for the new matter, a notification of which of the applied deliverers is approved is received via the Internet and a notification to that effect is sent to the terminal of he approved deliverer).
As per claim 7, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the information on the service of the collection and transportation of the package includes
irregular task information being information on notification, for a service provider candidate, of an offer
for a service of collection and transportation of the package in a transportation section in the
transportation plan generated by the processor, transportation by the other different transportation means being planned in the transportation section.
However, RICCI discloses: Brief Description of the Invention
Through a centralized system, the present invention creates an induction system that manages
transportation in adverse environmental conditions or in congested areas. The transportation service
provider makes advance request/ communication to the system supervising the control and guidance of
the SAPR to obtain and achieve the travel route / delivery. At this stage, the shipping service provider
delivers the origin, destination, date and the desired time for delivery completion. The control system
verifies the same request and evaluates whether the path represents incompatibility with other previous driving requests / paths. In terms of inspection, the system accepts or provides an alternative.. "; "The system may also be equipped with an error protection security system, which may also be used in areas where the incidence of human presence is high. The system thus designed can thus prevent
duplication of routes of different vehicles. This means that dedicated paths or paths to be allocated are
not occupied by drones that are not on-board SIMs but occupied by drones with telephone hardware
that can also be tracked based only on code IMEI and / It is even more true."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 8, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the irregular task information is information on notification of an offer for a service of
collection and transportation of the package based on a transportation request in which time for
collection or delivery is not designated by a transportation client of the package or a transportation
request with a certain amount or more of time remaining from current time to designated time of
delivery of the package.
However, RICCI discloses: Brief Description of the Invention
Through a centralized system, the present invention creates an induction system that manages
transportation in adverse environmental conditions or in congested areas. The transportation service
provider makes advance request / communication to the system supervising the control and guidance of
the SAPR to obtain and achieve the travel route / delivery. At this stage, the shipping service provider
delivers the origin, destination, date and the desired time for delivery completion. The control system
verifies the same request and evaluates whether the path represents incompatibility with other
previous driving requests / paths. In terms of inspection, the system accepts or provides an
alternative..."; "The system may also be equipped with an error protection security system, which may
also be used in areas where the incidence of human presence is high. The system thus designed can thus
prevent duplication of routes of different vehicles. This means that dedicated paths or paths to be
allocated are not occupied by drones that are not on-board SIMs but occupied by drones with telephone
hardware that can also be tracked based only on code IMEI and / It is even more true."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 9 TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the display is further configured to display of the offer, and receives application operation of the user for the notification of the offer, ([8] When there is a collection/delivery case request from a requester whose address is the delivery area of the delivery person, the server receives a notification about the new case; In response to the notification, when accessing the database via the Internet and applying to the case for which the notification has been received with reference to the case management database, the fact is notified to the server; In response to the input application, the requester terminal of the case receives notification from the server via the Internet whether or not to approve the application; Thereby, when the application is approved, a terminal for a delivery service system of a delivery service system in which the delivery person collects and delivers a package related to the new case.).
As per claim 10, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to perform authentication processing of determining
whether a request of package collection authentication being authentication of collection of the
package by the service provider is a request from the service provider approved by processor, (Claim 4: Registering in the database information including the name of the service provider input
to the server from the service provider terminal, the service charge area; For a new case registered in
the database, an application for a contract is received from the service provider terminal for a case in
which the area of the service target address is the service charge area of the case and the application is
registered in the database and the application target Notification of application to the requester
terminal of The client terminal that received the notification of the application for the new case receives
a notification as to whether or not to approve the service provider that applied, and notifies the
terminal of the approved service provider to that effect; As a result, the authorized service provider
provides services related to the new matter,).
As per claim 11, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to perform such control that, in response to the processor determining that the request of the package collection authentication of the package is a request from the service provider for the package, the package becomes possible to be carried away from a holding device holding the package.
However, RICCI discloses:
(The service provider (U-X) manages the orders received by the end user and fills in the request form in
turn on the web site of the mobile phone provider (G-X). At this stage, the service provider (UX) sends
the following data: aircraft code, on-board SIM card number of the SAPR, authenticated carrier code,
date of service execution, departure address, destination address, Completing the web form prepared
by the mobile phone provider GX by inserting the weight and then sending the request (Figure 6 - step
1). The mobile telephone provider GX then consequently sends the same request (Figure 4/402) to the
mobile telephone provider GX on the basis of the availability of a dedicated channel within the database
(Figure 4/404) (Figure 4/403), also referred to as EO, which verifies the route designation time allocated
for the dedicated channel (see Figure 4/405). Once validation of the mission is verified, the central
control system (EO) approves the mission and delivers it to the mobile phone provider (G-X).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 12, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the holding device is an unmanned vehicle, and in response to the processor determining that
the request of the package collection authentication of the package is a request from the approved
service provider for the service of the collection and delivery of the package, the control unit performs
such control that the package becomes possible to be carried away from the unmanned vehicle.
However, RICCI discloses: The SAPR or drones may seem to the public as a system dedicated to
interesting activities such as aerodynamics, but it is easy to understand that this is not true due to the
increasing demand for commercial use of these drones. In particular, several such arranged fleets can be
used to carry out a variety of commercial services, starting with goods collection, delivery, surveying,
surveillance, aerial mapping, and so on.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 13, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the holding device holds the package released from an unmanned vehicle.
However, RICCI discloses: The SAPR or drones may seem to the public as a system dedicated to
interesting activities such as aerodynamics, but it is easy to understand that this is not true due to the
increasing demand for commercial use of these drones. In particular, several such arranged fleets can be
used to carry out a variety of commercial services, starting with goods collection, delivery, surveying,
surveillance, aerial mapping, and so on.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 14, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to receive information on the authentication from the service provider terminal.
However, RICCI discloses: The service provider (U-X) manages the orders received by the end user and
fills in the request form in turn on the web site of the mobile phone provider (G-X). At this stage, the
service provider (UX) sends the following data: aircraft code, on-board SIM card number of the SAPR,
authenticated carrier code, date of service execution, departure address, destination address,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 15, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the communication interface is configured to receive identification information transmitted from the service provider terminal, and the processor is configured to perform authentication based
on the identification information, (Claim 4: Registering in the database information including the name
of the service provider input to the server from the service provider terminal, the service charge area;
For a new case registered in the database, an application for a contract is received from the service
provider terminal for a case in which the area of the service target address is the service charge area of
the case and the application is registered in the database and the application target Notification of
application to the requester terminal of The client terminal that received the notification of the
application for the new case receives a notification as to whether or not to approve the service provider
that applied, and notifies the terminal of the approved service provider to that effect; As a result, the
authorized service provider provides services related to the new matter,)
As per claim 16, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to perform authentication of collection of the package by the service provider in response to a request of authentication from the service provider terminal based on
identification information relating to a holding device holding the package.
As per claim 17, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein, in response to the processor performing the package collection authentication for the service
provider, the processor approves start of service providing of the collection and delivery of the
package by the service provider, (Claim 4: Registering in the database information including the name of
the service provider input to the server from the service provider terminal, the service charge area; For a
new case registered in the database, an application for a contract is received from the service provider
terminal for a case in which the area of the service target address is the service charge area of the case
and the application is registered in the database and the application target Notification of application to
the requester terminal of The client terminal that received the notification of the application for the
new case receives a notification as to whether or not to approve the service provider that applied, and
notifies the terminal of the approved service provider to that effect; As a result, the authorized service
provider provides services related to the new matter).
As per claim 18, TAGAMI discloses:
wherein the communication interface is configured to receive identification information transmitted from a recipient terminal used by a recipient of the package at a delivery destination of the package, and the processor is configured to perform authentication based on the identification information in response to an authentication request of handing-over of the package from the service provider terminal, (In addition, information such as the name, address, etc. of each of the requesters entered by accessing the server via the Internet from each of the plurality of requester terminals is registered in the database, and from the plurality of requester terminals via the Internet. The server accesses the server and receives information such as the desired date and time for the service case of each client and registers it in the database for each case. Furthermore, for a new matter registered in the database, a contract is made from the service provider terminal for a case in which the area of the requester's address is in charge of the case).
As per claim 19, TAGAMI does not disclose:
wherein, in response to the processor authenticating the handing-over of the package by the service
provider, the processor approves completion of service providing of the collection and delivery of the
package by the service provider and completion of delivery of the package to the delivery destination.
However, RICCI discloses: Once validation of the mission is verified, the central control system (EO)
approves the mission and delivers it to the mobile phone provider (G-X).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by RICCI in the systems of TAGAMI, 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.
As per claim 20, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 21, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 22, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is
therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the Claim Interpretation argument, Applicant has amended the claims. Examiner acknowledges Applicant amending the claims to remove the word “unit”, however, the claim still recite “transportation means”, and therefore are still rejection under 35 USC 112(f).
With regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant traverses the rejection. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the processor is further configured to generate a transportation plan that includes a transportation route for the package by said another different transportation means to a package collection point, and upon approval of the service provider, control a physical holding device at the package collection point to release the package to the service provider.” And also argues that the claims are not a mere method of managing interactions between people, and that under the Supreme Court's Alice framework, the claim survives step one because the claim is directed to a specific improvement in logistics technology, not a fundamental economic or human practice. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim recites a physical holding device and an action performed on a physical package, the mere recitation of a physical component or physical-world result does not, by itself, integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The underlying abstract idea remains the organization and management of a package-transportation service, including notifying and approving a service provider, generating a transportation plan and route, and coordinating release of the package. The claimed control of the physical holding device merely implements the result of the service-provider approval by causing the package to be released. The claim does not recite a particular technological mechanism for controlling the holding device, an improvement to the operation of the holding device, or an improvement to package-transportation technology. Instead, the holding device is used for its conventional purpose of physically holding and releasing a package. Thus, the physical holding device does not transform the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, it represents insignificant extra-solution activity or conventional physical implementation of the underlying logistical determination.
Even the additional elements of a communication interface configured for conditional notification, a processor that approves a service provider based on eligibility, a display and the generation of a transportation route and the actuation of a physical holding device considered individually and in combination do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The conditional notification merely communicates an offeror service opportunity based on specified conditions, the processor approval based on eligibility merely automates the evaluation and selection of a service provider, the display merely presents information, and the generation of a transportation route performs the logistical planning underlying the transportation service. With regard to the actuation of a physical holding device to release the package, the claim dos not recite a particular technical mechanism for actuating the device, or an unconventional arrangement of the device and processor, or an improvement in the operation of the holding device or transportation system. Instead, the physical device is merely used for its ordinary function of holding and releasing a package after the service provider has been approved. The claims merely automate and physically implement organization and management of the package-transportation service without reciting technological improvement, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-19 depend from independent claim 1, and are still rejected for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
Independent claim 20-22 recite limitations similar to those disclose in independent claim 1, and are therefore still rejected for similar reasons.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 6/7/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 20-22 under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of RICCI et al (KR 20180036914 A), and further in view of BROWN et al (WO 2014124529 A1) under a 35 USC 103 rejection.
Similarly, claims 2-19 are now rejected in further view of RICCI et al (KR 20180036914 A), and further in view of BROWN et al (WO 2014124529 A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
August 24, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights