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 12/27/25, the following is a first non-final office action. 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 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: “unit” in claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-19; and claim 20.
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.
As already stated, 112(f) is invoked in claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-19; and claim 20. The term “unit” in light of the specification is a nonce term. The communication unit in claims 1, 15, 18 and 20; the control unit in claims 1-2, 5-6, 11, 12, 17, 19; the screen generation unit in claims 1 and 20; the operation display unit in claim 9; the authentication unit in claims 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19; and the authentication communication unit in claim 14 performs functions noted by the claims, and are not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions and therefore passes the 3-prong test.
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.
With regard to the present claims 1-19, these claims are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a device and ultimately, is statutory. Claim 22 is directed to a program, which is software per se and is not statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of “Organizing Human Activity”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for notifying candidates of a service opportunity, selecting/approving a provider based on conditions, and displaying information about the service, which are methods of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of “Organizing Human Activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing service records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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 –
Claims 1 and 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention, as being anticipated by TAGAMI (JP 2020024732 A).
As per claim 1, TAGAMI discloses:
a communication unit that notifies 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 control unit that approves 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 screen generation unit that generates 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).
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.
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) 2-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAGAMI (JP 2020024732 A), and further in view of RICCI (KR 20180036914 A).
As per claim 2, TAGAMI does not disclose:
Wherein the control unit acquires position information and information on providing schedule status of a determined service of the service provider candidate, from the service provider terminal, and
the control unit determines a transmission destination of notification of the offer by the communication unit 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 control unit, 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 control unit, 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 control unit generates 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, the control unit approves 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, the control unit selects and approves 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 (E0) 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 control unit acquires a service providable condition indicating a condition on which each user is capable of providing a service, and the control unit selects 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 the 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 control unit, 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:
further comprising an operation display unit that displays the notification 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:
further comprising an authentication unit that performs 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 the control
unit, (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 control unit performs such control that, when the authentication unit determines 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 E0, 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 (E0) 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 when the authentication unit determines 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 holding device includes the authentication unit, and an authentication communication unit that receives 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 unit receives identification information transmitted from the service provider terminal, and the authentication unit performs 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 authentication unit performs 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, when the authentication unit performs the package collection authentication for the service provider, the control unit 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 unit receives identification information transmitted from a recipient terminal used by a recipient of the package at a delivery destination of the package, and the authentication unit performs 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, when the authentication unit authenticates the handing-over of the package by the service provider, the control unit 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 (E0) 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.
Conclusion
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
January 3, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628