DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 05/30/2025.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 03/11/2025. Claims 1 and 3-4 were amended. Claims 2 and 5-6 were cancelled. Claims 7-11 were added. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to the Specification
Applicant requested the following amendment to the title of the invention: “INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR MANAGING DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the third notification allows the user to adjust their availability or delivery preferences in real time. Examiner respectfully disagrees as such a feature is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In claim 1, although the third notification is sent to the user, there is no limitation which describes the user adjusting their availability or delivery preferences in response to the third notification. Further, there is no discussion regarding dynamically updated traffic conditions or delivery vehicle delays within claim 1.
Applicant argues the claim invention provides technological improvements such as reducing disruption to the delivery schedule, reducing the need for redelivery attempts, and improving efficiency of delivery. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Applicant’s noted improvements allow for a more efficient delivery process between the service provider and the user. Thus, the improvements are not improvements in computers or technology, but rather improvements to the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Given that independent Claim 1 recites limitations such as “in a case where determination is made that the delivery destination is first in the order”, Examiner determined that the claimed invention is closest to the embodiment recited in figure 5.
Thus, the following objections and recommendations are made regarding the order of the limitations in light of Applicant’s specification and figure 5.
Currently, the limitations of Claim 1 are recited in the following order:
acquire first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval from a server;
calculate a first distance from the first location indicated by the first acquired location data to a delivery destination;
calculate a first estimated time based on the calculated first distance, an order in which packages are delivered, a road condition, weather, or a time of a day, the first estimated time being an estimated amount of time until the delivery vehicle arrives at the delivery destination;
store the calculated first distance and the calculated first estimated time in the memory;
send first estimated time data including the first estimated time to the terminal device;
determine whether the calculated first estimated time is less than a threshold time;
in a case where determination is made that the calculated first estimated time is less than the threshold time, send a first notification to the terminal device via the communication unit, the first notification indicating that the delivery vehicle is enabled to receive a second notification from the terminal device, the second notification indicating that the user is temporarily unavailable to receive delivery;
determine whether the second notification has been received: and
access delivery data stored in the memory the delivery data indicating the order in which the packages are delivered; wherein
in a case where determination is made that the delivery destination is first in the order, the processor is further configured to send the first estimated time data to the terminal device,
in a case where determination is made that the second notification has been received in a predetermined time and the delivery destination is first in the order, the processor is further configured to reschedule the delivery destination to a later point in the order, and
in a case where the second notification is not received in the predetermined time, the processor is further configured to:
acquire second location data indicating a second location of the delivery vehicle, the second location being acquired after a lapse of time from acquiring the first location;
calculate a second distance from the second location of the delivery vehicle to the delivery destination;
calculate a second estimated time based on the calculated second distance;
send second estimated time data including the second estimated time to the terminal device; and
send a third notification to the terminal device, the third notification indicating that the first estimated time has been changed.
To start, limitation (e) or “send first estimated time data including the first estimated time to the terminal device” recites “the first estimated time”. As limitations (d) and (f) refer to the first estimated time as the calculated first estimated time, Examiner recommends Applicant amend limitation (e) to recite “send first estimated time data including the calculated first estimated time to the terminal device”.
Given figure 5 and specification paragraph 54-55, limitation (i) and (j) should follow limitation (e). This logically follows figure 5 as after step 303, steps 304 and 305 (which are equivalent to limitations (i) and (j)) are performed.
Such an amendment would improve the clarity of the claims and the final order of the limitations, if amended as Examiner recommends, should be (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (i), (j), (f), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), and (q).
Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 3-4 and 7-11 inherit the objections as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a processor configured to: acquire first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval from a server”.
Given paragraph 25 of Applicant’s specification and figure 2, Examiner understands that Claim 1 recites an information processing device (10) comprising a control unit (11) which may be a processor. Further, Applicant’s specification paragraph 13 states that the information processing device may be a server.
The closest description of “a processor configured to: acquire first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval from a server” is in para. 34 of Applicant’s specification “In S101, the control unit 11 of the information processing device 10 acquires location data indicating the location of the delivery vehicles 30. Specifically, the delivery vehicle 30 measures the location of the delivery vehicle 30 by GPS receiver mounted on the delivery vehicle 30. The term “GPS” is an abbreviation for “global positioning system”. The delivery vehicle 30 sends data indicating the measured location to the information processing device 10 as location data. The control unit 11 receives the sent location data via the communication unit 13” and para. 39 “When the estimated time is 15 minutes or more, the control unit 11 performs S101 process. S101 process is performed after the predetermined period has elapsed after the determination of S106. The predetermined time may vary depending on the estimated time.”
Thus, the specification supports “a processor configured to: acquire first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval” because the control unit/processor acquires first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval from the delivery vehicle.
However, the specification does not support “acquiring…from a server” as the control unit is a part of the server and the control unit acquires the data from the delivery vehicle. Dependent Claims 3-4 and 7-11 inherit the rejection as they do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
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, 3-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are directed to an information processing device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 recites:
acquire first location data indicating a first location of the delivery vehicle at a predetermined time interval…;
calculate a first distance from the first location indicated by the first acquired location data to a delivery destination;
calculate a first estimated time based on the calculated first distance, an order in which packages are delivered, a road condition, weather, or a time of a day, the first estimated time being an estimated amount of time until the delivery vehicle arrives at the delivery destination;
store the calculated first distance and the calculated first estimated time…;
send first estimated time data including the first estimated time…;
determine whether the calculated first estimated time is less than a threshold time;
in a case where determination is made that the calculated first estimated time is less than the threshold time, send a first notification …, the first notification indicating that the delivery vehicle is enabled to receive a second notification from the terminal device, the second notification indicating that the user is temporarily unavailable to receive delivery;
determine whether the second notification has been received: and
access delivery data …, the delivery data indicating the order in which the packages are delivered; wherein
in a case where determination is made that the delivery destination is first in the order, … send the first estimated time data …,
in a case where determination is made that the second notification has been received in a predetermined time and the delivery destination is first in the order, … reschedule the delivery destination to a later point in the order, and
in a case where the second notification is not received in the predetermined time, …
acquire second location data indicating a second location of the delivery vehicle,
the second location being acquired after a lapse of time from acquiring the first location;
calculate a second distance from the second location of the delivery vehicle to the delivery destination;
calculate a second estimated time based on the calculated second distance;
send second estimated time data including the second estimated time…; and
send a third notification …, the third notification indicating that the first estimated time has been changed.
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions). Specifically, business relations between a user receiving a delivery and the delivery service provider in light of Applicant’s specification paragraph 7 “the present disclosure allows the user to notify the delivery vehicle that he or she is temporarily unavailable to receive delivery”.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claim recites “an information processing device, comprising: a memory; a communication unit configured to communicate with a terminal device of a user and a delivery vehicle; and a processor”. Thus, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a memory, a communication unit, a processor, a server, and a terminal device of a user which are all recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing device comprising a memory, a communication unit, and a processor, a server, and a terminal device of a user to perform the steps/functions recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the steps of Claim 1 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 3 further specifies sending the first location data. Dependent Claim 4 further specifies determining whether the calculated first distance is less than a threshold distance and sending the first estimated time data in case where it is less than the threshold.
Dependent Claim 7 further specifies a case where the first estimated time is 15 minutes and displaying a message indicating when the delivery vehicle will arrive. Dependent Claim 8 further specifies sending the first location data and displaying a map with an icon.
Dependent Claim 9 further specifies a threshold time is 15 minutes and dependent claim 10 further specifies wherein the predetermined time is 5 minutes.
Dependent Claim 11 further specifies the exact message displayed in the third notification.
Such limitations are further directed towards managing commercial interactions, specifically business relations as the limitations are directed to coordinating the delivery by informing the user of the delivery time and location of delivery vehicle as well as defining the thresholds of time in which notifications are sent and received.
Thus, taken alone and when viewed in combination, nothing in dependent claims 3-4 and 7-11 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art: Examiner is unaware of any combination of available prior art which teaches or suggests all the limitations within the independent claims in a manner in which it is obvious to combine the references. Examiner noting that the claims still have a 101 rejection. The following are the closest prior art:
Imaeda et al. (US2016/0321604) teaches multiple limitations such as “acquire”, “calculate”, “calculate”, “send”, “determine”, “determine whether the second notification has been received”, “access”, “in a case where determination is made that the second notification has been received in a predetermined time and the delivery destination is first in the order, the processor is further configured to reschedule the delivery destination to a later point in the order”, and “in a case where the second notification is not received in the predetermined time, the processor is further configured to…send a third notification to the terminal device, the third notification indicating that the first estimated time has been changed”. Thus, Imaeda does not teach repeating the process (acquire, calculate, calculate, send) when the second notification is not received.
Further, Imaeda does teach “in a case where determination is made that the calculated first estimated time is less than the threshold time, send a first notification to the terminal device via the communication unit, the first notification indicating that the delivery vehicle is enabled to receive a second notification from the terminal device, the second notification indicating that the user is temporarily unavailable to receive delivery” (figure 6-7 and para. 57-58 user may select options such as deliver as scheduled or delay delivery; figure 9 and para. 70-72 where the user terminal receives the inquiry and the user may select to delay the delivery). However, the calculated first estimated time in Imaeda refers to the user’s estimated time to return to their home.
Shroff et al. (US2017/0337511) suggests “in a case where determination is made that the calculated first estimated time is less than the threshold time…” (para. 167-169 where once the vehicle is within a specified distance/time, the user is given access to information such as the vehicle’s estimated location and a narrowed estimated delivery window in the item tracking session; and where in figure 5G and para. 170-174 given the information in the item tracking session, the user may decide to change when/how the item is delivered; see also para. 124-126 and 131 where the carrier computing entity gives the user computing entity a link to access the item tracking session).
Arshad et al. (US2018/0204178) suggests “in a case where determination is made that the calculated first estimated time is less than the threshold time…” (para. 27 a recipient has a mobile device with an app of the delivery company; para. 30 and figure 2 where the circle 35 indicates a geofenced area around the recipient’s home and the perimeter of the geo-fenced area is based on the drive time for the delivery vehicle from the recipient’s house because the detection of whether the recipient is at home or not becomes known to the delivery app close to the time of the delivery; figure 4 and para. 34-36 and 46 where the test of whether the recipient is at home may be determined by a trigger (crossing the geo-fence) to message the recipient to ask if the recipient is at the designated destination address or an absence notification that the recipient had “saved” in the account)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628