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 .
Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 01/25/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-009743 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the application filed on 16 of October 2024.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim should be written in independent form as a method type claim instead of a claim that is dependent on a system claim as currently written. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The examiner will treat claim 6 as an independent claim for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “an information processing device; and a terminal device associated with the delivery person or a vehicle to be driven by the delivery person, wherein the terminal device is configured to transmit route information of the vehicle to the information processing device, the information processing device is configured to score the driving of the delivery person and the route information of the vehicle based on delivery result information on the delivery item, and the information processing device is configured to determine route information to be presented to another delivery person based on a score of the delivery person or the route information, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” such as scoring a driver or route as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 5 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will 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 judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1 recites additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional element “vibration detection device”, and “luggage storage device”. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶75 “a general-purpose computer may function as the terminal device 10 or the information processing device 20 according to the above-described embodiment. Specifically, a program describing each function of the terminal device 10 or each function of the information processing device 20 according to the above-described embodiment is stored in a memory of a general-purpose computer, and the program is read and executed by a processor. Therefore, the present disclosure can also be realized as a program that can be executed by the processor or a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores the program”.
Claims 2-4 and 6 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20170270789 to Ferguson (hereinafter referred to as “Ferguson”) in view of US 20220101249 to Wuorinen et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Wuorinen”).
(A) As per Claims 1 and 6:
Ferguson expressly discloses:
an information processing device; a terminal device associated with the delivery person or a vehicle to be driven by the delivery person; (Ferguson ¶31 when the mobile special-purpose computing device 218 within the vehicle 206 is used to detect vehicle telematics data or to receive vehicle telematics data from the vehicle 206, the mobile special-purpose computing device 218 may store, analyze, or transmit the vehicle telematics data to one or more other devices. For example, the mobile special-purpose computing device 218 may transmit vehicle telematics data directly to a driving score transmission unit 214, and thus may be used in conjunction with or instead of the telematics device 212. Moreover, the processing components of the mobile special-purpose computing device 218 may be used to collect and analyze telematics data to calculate a driving score for a driver associated with the vehicle 206).
wherein the terminal device is configured to transmit route information of the vehicle to the information processing device; (Ferguson ¶33 the vehicle 206 may collect and transmit vehicle telematics data and transmit the vehicle operation data directly to an external system, such as the route designing system 202 or another special-purpose computer device configured to calculate a driving score based on vehicle telematics data. In such examples, the driving score transmission unit 214 may be optional).
the information processing device is configured to score the driving of the delivery person…; (Ferguson ¶38 the driving score transmission unit 214 may determine a set of preferred and non-preferred driving behaviors upon which to base the driving score (block 304). The set of preferred driving behaviors may represent driving behaviors for which the driving score transmission unit 214 may reward a driver by increasing the driving score).
the information processing device is configured to determine route information to be presented to another delivery person based on a score of the delivery person or the route information; (Ferguson ¶49-50 The data store 410 may store information related to drivers of vehicles requesting preferred routes, drivers of other vehicles, driver scores for drivers associated with other vehicles, and route information. For example, the data store 410 may include a driver information database 412, a driving scores database 414, and a route information database 416. The route designing system 202 may utilize this information in receiving requests for preferred routes, collecting driver scores from drivers of other vehicles, and determining preferred routes based on the driver scores. For instance, in addition to safety, a driver may indicate a preference for shortest routes, scenic routes, fuel economy, etc. The route designing system 202 may take these preferences into account when designing a route for the driver. As such, the route designing system 202 may provide different preferred routes for different drivers, even where the drivers request routes between the same two geographical points at the same time of day, where the driver information database 412 indicates different route preferences for the drivers).
Although Ferguson teaches systems and methods are provided for designing a preferred route for a vehicle, it doesn’t expressly disclose providing route information based on delivery result, however Wuorinen teaches:
…the route information of the vehicle based on delivery result information on the delivery item; (Wuorinen ¶35 the present disclosure describes an apparatus, method, and system to enable instant and automatic re-ordering of an item suspected of incurring damage, to identify locations that cause damage to items, to enable better route planning that avoids these locations, to enable integration with other/existing driving scores (e.g., ONSTAR®), to enable the enhanced integrity of the package delivered, and to make detectable determinations if routes have been recalculated based on predictive damage algorithms (e.g., route planning to avoid damaged road when otherwise inefficient to do take that route)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Ferguson’s computing device within the vehicle is used to detect vehicle telematics data or to receive vehicle telematics data from the vehicle and identify locations that cause damage to items of Wuorinen as both are analogous art which teach solutions to provide different preferred routes for different drivers as taught in Ferguson and enable better route planning that avoids these locations, to enable integration with other/existing driving scores to enable the enhanced integrity of the package delivered, and to make detectable determinations if routes have been recalculated based on predictive damage algorithms as taught in Wuorinen.
Ferguson teaches a system in the abstract.
(B) As per Claim 2:
Ferguson expressly discloses:
wherein the information processing device is configured to determine the route information to be presented to the other delivery person based further on road information on a route of the vehicle; (Ferguson ¶52-54 the route information database 416 may store information associated with a traffic system. The request receiver unit 402 may receive and analyze requests from a vehicle 204 for a preferred route from a first geographical point to a second geographical point (block 502). In some examples, the request may be for immediate travel. In other examples, the request may specify a future time of travel (e.g., <60 minutes after the current time, <12 hours after the current time, <7 days after the current time, etc.).).
(C) As per Claim 3:
Ferguson expressly discloses:
wherein the information processing device is configured to determine the route information to be presented to the other delivery person based further on a type of the vehicle; (Ferguson ¶52 a mini-route may be restricted to a drivers with insurance (or drivers associated with a particular insurance company), drivers with a threshold driving score, or vehicle classification (e.g., 2-axle passenger vehicles, 2-axle commercial vehicles, 3-4 axle vehicles, 5-9 axle vehicles, or other similar classifications). Further, the route information database 416 may maintain, e.g., through a database relationship, associations between the mini-routes, such that the route designing system 202 may determine how to construct a route from one geographical point to another geographical point using a plurality of mini-routes).
(D) As per Claim 4:
Although Ferguson in view of Wuorinen teaches systems and methods are provided for designing a preferred route for a vehicle, it doesn’t expressly disclose providing an incentive to the driver based on score, however Wuorinen additionally teaches:
wherein the information processing device is configured to provide an incentive to the delivery person based on the score of the delivery person; (Wuorinen ¶77 At step 950, the delivery company uses data collected to identify and report inefficiencies to transport services and to reward transports that show improvements or achieve higher efficiencies).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Ferguson in view of Wuorinen’s computing device within the vehicle is used to detect vehicle telematics data or to receive vehicle telematics data from the vehicle and have the delivery company use data collected to identify and report inefficiencies to transport services of Wuorinen as both are analogous art which teach solutions to provide different preferred routes for different drivers as taught in Ferguson in view of Wuorinen and reward transports that show improvements or achieve higher efficiencies as additionally taught in Wuorinen.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20170270789 to Ferguson (hereinafter referred to as “Ferguson”) in view of US 20220101249 to Wuorinen et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Wuorinen”) and in further view of US 20220101249 to Nygren et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Nygren”).
(A) As per Claim 5:
Ferguson expressly discloses:
the information processing device is configured to score the driving of the delivery person…; (Ferguson ¶38 the driving score transmission unit 214 may determine a set of preferred and non-preferred driving behaviors upon which to base the driving score (block 304). The set of preferred driving behaviors may represent driving behaviors for which the driving score transmission unit 214 may reward a driver by increasing the driving score).
Although Ferguson in view of Wuorinen teaches systems and methods are provided for designing a preferred route for a vehicle, it doesn’t expressly disclose p providing route information based on delivery result, however Wuorinen additionally teaches:
…the route information of the vehicle…; (Wuorinen ¶35 the present disclosure describes an apparatus, method, and system to enable instant and automatic re-ordering of an item suspected of incurring damage, to identify locations that cause damage to items, to enable better route planning that avoids these locations, to enable integration with other/existing driving scores (e.g., ONSTAR®), to enable the enhanced integrity of the package delivered, and to make detectable determinations if routes have been recalculated based on predictive damage algorithms (e.g., route planning to avoid damaged road when otherwise inefficient to do take that route)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Ferguson in view of Wuorinen’s computing device within the vehicle is used to detect vehicle telematics data or to receive vehicle telematics data from the vehicle and have the delivery company use data collected to identify and identify locations that cause damage to items of Wuorinen as both are analogous art which teach solutions to provide different preferred routes for different drivers as taught in Ferguson in view of Wuorinen and enable better route planning that avoids these locations, to enable integration with other/existing driving scores to enable the enhanced integrity of the package delivered, and to make detectable determinations if routes have been recalculated based on predictive damage algorithms as additionally taught in Wuorinen.
Although Ferguson in view of Wuorinen teaches systems and methods are provided for designing a preferred route for a vehicle, it doesn’t expressly disclose a vibration detection system to collects vibration data during transport, however Nygren teaches:
the system includes a vibration detection device attached to the delivery item or a luggage storage device; the vibration detection device is configured to transmit, to the information processing device, information on vibration detected during delivery of the delivery item; (Nygren ¶24 the sensors may also be used to sense a frequency and magnitude of vibrations the goods 104 are subjected to during transit. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the sensors 108 are shown housed within portable monitoring device 106; in other embodiments, the sensors 108 may be located in any other position within the transport vehicle 102, and may or may not be integrated with the portable monitoring device 106 (e.g., the sensors 108 may communicate wirelessly with the portable monitoring device 106 via a wireless connection)).
…based further on the information on the vibration; (Nygren ¶24 the sensors may also be used to sense a frequency and magnitude of vibrations the goods 104 are subjected to during transit).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Ferguson in view of Wuorinen’s computing device within the vehicle is used to detect vehicle telematics data or to receive vehicle telematics data from the vehicle and have the sensors be used to sense a frequency and magnitude of vibrations the goods are subjected to during transit of Nygren as both are analogous art which teach solutions to provide different preferred routes for different drivers as taught in Ferguson in view of Wuorinen and have the sensors be located in any other position within the transport vehicle, and may or may not be integrated with the portable monitoring device as taught in Nygren.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
S. Otsuki and H. Miwa, "Contents Delivery Method Using Route Prediction in Traffic Offloading by V2X," 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 2015, pp. 239-245.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is 571-272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/22/2025
Prosecution Insights