DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 1-7 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-185417 filed on October 30, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/21/2024 has been considered.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“an action plan information acquisition unit that acquires…” of claim 1
“a first target object information recognition unit that recognizes…” of claim 1
“a transport service proposal unit that transmits…” of claim 1
“a first transport service corresponding unit that executes first transport service corresponding processing…” of claim 2
“wherein the first target object information recognition unit excludes…” of claim 3
“wherein the first target object information recognition unit preferentially recognizes…” of claim 4
“a second target object information recognition unit that recognizes…” of claim 5
“the transport service proposal unit transmits…” of claim 5
“a second transport service corresponding unit that executes second transport service corresponding processing…” of claim 6
“wherein the transport service proposal unit transmits…” of claim 7
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.
The following portions of the published specification (US20250139729A1) appear to describe the corresponding structure(s) for performing the claimed functions above:
¶ 0044 – “The processor 10 reads and executes the program 21 so as to function as an action plan information acquisition unit 11, a first target object information recognition unit 12, a second target object information recognition unit 13, a transport service proposal unit 14, a first transport service corresponding unit 15, and a second transport service corresponding unit 16”
Also generally see ¶ 0060-0067 describing the specific functions above.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite “A movement support system, comprising…an action plan acquisition unit…a first target object information recognition unit…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites limitations for a movement support system that:
acquires action plan information indicating an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body;
recognizes, based on the action plan information, a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body, and a first target point and a first target time in which the first target object is scheduled to be used; and
[transmits…] (outputs to the user) first transport service proposal information that proposes use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body other than the first mobile body
The limitations of independent claim 1 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (acquiring an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body, recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, and outputting a transport service proposal to a user proposing use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above (acquiring an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body, recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, and outputting a transport service proposal to a user proposing use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body) amount to a commercial interaction (at least describes contracts, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations by providing a proposal to a user for using a first transport service) and managing interactions between people (interactions between the user and the system/transportation service for acquiring information and proposing use of a transport service), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claim 1 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “acquires” step amounts to an observation, while the “recognizes” step falls under evaluations, judgments, or opinions. Furthermore, the “transmits” function is analogous to outputting a proposal to a user, and could be performed by a user via pen and paper (note that “transmits,” e.g. transmitting data electronically, is addressed as an additional element in the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis below). Also note that as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claim 1 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claim 1 is identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. acquiring an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body, recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, and outputting a transport service proposal to a user proposing use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A movement support system, comprising: an action plan information acquisition unit…a first target object information recognition unit…and a transport service proposal unit that transmits, to a user terminal used by the user…” of claim 1). As per the invocation of § 112(f) above, the various units describe functional elements of a generic processor. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” Further, the use of a transport service proposal unit to transmit information to a user terminal used by the user merely amount to the use of a generic processor and user terminal (computers) in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. acquiring an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body, recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, and outputting a transport service proposal to a user proposing use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A movement support system, comprising: an action plan information acquisition unit…a first target object information recognition unit…and a transport service proposal unit that transmits, to a user terminal used by the user…” of claim 1). As per above, the use of a transport service proposal unit to transmit information to a user terminal used by the user merely amount to the use of a generic processor and user terminal (computers) in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data), and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not provide anything that amounts to significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-7:
Dependent claims 2-7 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-6 recite further limitations describing the abstract idea (“implementing the first transport service, upon receiving first transport service request information that requests use of the first transport service” of claim 2; ““recognizes, based on the action plan information, a second target object…” of claim 5; “implementing the second transport service, upon receiving second transport service request information that requests use of the second transport service” of claim 6) being applied using generic computers and/or computers being used in their ordinary capacity (to receive/transmit data) to apply the abstract idea (i.e. “a first transport service corresponding unit that executes first transport service corresponding processing…the first transport service request information being transmitted from the user terminal” of claim 2; “a second target object information recognition unit” and “the transport service proposal unit transmits, to the user terminal, second transport service proposal information” of claim 5; “a second transport service corresponding unit that executes second transport service corresponding processing…the second transport service request information being transmitted from the user terminal” of claim 6)
Dependent claims 3-4 and 7 do not add any additional elements beyond those already addressed above but merely further describe the abstract idea above (“excludes from the first target object a target object…” of claim 3; “preferentially recognizes as the first target object a target object…” of claim 4; and “proposes use of the second transport service for cleaning the second target object that has been used by the user and then transporting the second target object to the second prescribed point” of claim 7), being applied using generic computers and/or (“the first target object information recognition unit” of claims 3-4; and “wherein the transport service proposal unit transmits, to the user terminal, the second transport service proposal information…”).
None of the limitations above recite anything that improves any particular technology or otherwise recites meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under § 101.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210133678 A1 to Bates.
Claim 1: Bates discloses:
A movement support system (Bates: ¶ 0007-0008, ¶ 0038, Fig. 1 showing luggage redirection system; note that as per ¶ 0031, ¶ 0035 the luggage may be on a different flight/vehicle or same flight/vehicle, and as per ¶ 0111 after the flight “The passenger 502 may travel along a different path 524 to the final destination, which may include intermediate stops along the way (e.g., an office location, sightseeing, etc.)”), comprising:
an action plan information acquisition unit that acquires action plan information indicating an action plan of a user including movement by a first mobile body (Bates: ¶ 0081, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0116-0118 showing receiving itinerary identification information, which may including flight information, i.e. movement by a first mobile body, and luggage information with delivery preference information, with ¶ 0116 specifically showing acquiring input from the user including destinations and desired delivery time for each piece of luggage to ensure each piece of luggage is at the desired location at the desired time);
a first target object information recognition unit that recognizes, based on the action plan information, a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body, and a first target point and a first target time in which the first target object is scheduled to be used (Bates: ¶ 0116 showing the system receives input information about pieces of luggage, i.e. at least a first target object, including desired destinations and desired delivery time for each piece of luggage, to ensure each piece of luggage is at the desired location at the desired time, with ¶ 0114 and ¶ 0116 also showing the luggage may be golf clubs to be delivered to a golf course that the passenger is visiting, at a desired delivery time, i.e. clearly for use at the golf course); and
a transport service proposal unit that transmits, to a user terminal used by the user, first transport service proposal information that proposes use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from a first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body other than the first mobile body (Bates: ¶ 0118 “The luggage redirection system 100 may evaluate the received delivery preferences, obtained third party delivery variables, obtained travel variables to generate one or more redirection offers for each piece of luggage 508 a-c. These offers are generated, transmitted, and displayed on the user interface system 130 and the passenger selects one or more of the offers. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5B, the passenger may select a commercial van delivery service 520 a for delivering luggage 508 a along path 522, with a desired delivery time; ride-share delivery service provider 520 b for delivering luggage 508 b to location 504 b; and drone delivery service provider 520 c to deliver luggage 508 c to location 504 b. Once an offer is selected for each piece of luggage 508 a-c, an order is generated for each luggage redirection offer and communicated to the luggage delivery service provider”; as per ¶ 0113 “each piece of luggage 508 a-c is to be delivered to one or more different final destinations 504 a-504 c using one or more different delivery service providers operating vehicles 520 a 520 a-520 c”)
Claim 2: Bates discloses claim 1. Bates further discloses:
a first transport service corresponding unit that executes first transport service corresponding processing for implementing the first transport service (Bates: ¶ 0104 “ground-based server systems may be one or more third party systems 150 for processing, executing and delivering of the luggage in accordance with the instructions included in the selected offer (e.g., a delivery service provider system)”; also see ¶ 0113 showing the delivery service providers delivery the luggage using respective vehicles), upon receiving first transport service request information that requests use of the first transport service (Bates: ¶ 0118 showing receiving an order corresponding to the luggage transportation offer),
the first transport service request information being transmitted from the user terminal (Bates: ¶ 0118 using user interface 130, an offer is selected and an order is generated for each luggage redirection offer and communicated to the luggage delivery service provider; ¶ 0040 showing user interface system may include PEDs such as cell phones, smart phones, and other portable electronic devices, i.e. user terminal)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210133678 A1 to Bates in view of US 20220414811 A1 to Liotta.
Claim 3: Bates discloses claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Bates does not explicitly teach, however, Liotta teaches:
wherein the first target object information recognition unit excludes from the first target object a target object that is scheduled to be used within a prescribed time from end of movement by the first mobile body and that is also carriable into the first mobile body, even though the target object is used after movement of the first mobile body (Liotta: ¶ 0022 “the transportation system may determine whether the baggage items associated with the trip can be carried in the same vehicle as the passengers. For instance, based on the passenger data (e.g., number of passengers) and the baggage data (e.g., number and sizes of items), the transportation system may determine that the vehicle selected to transport the passengers can also carry the baggage”; also see ¶ 0040, and see ¶ 0033, ¶ 0041 showing the user may indicate when the items are needed, e.g. at the same time as passenger arrival, or delayed arrival (after movement by the first mobile body))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of whether or not an object may be transported in the same vehicle as the user of Liotta in the luggage transportation system of Bates with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “vehicle sharing is not well equipped to handle certain situations, such as when passengers have large quantities of luggage or other equipment” (Liotta: ¶ 0001). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, 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.
Claim 4: Bates discloses claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, while Bates teaches separately transporting the passenger and luggage to their destinations after a flight, i.e. travel via the “first mobile body” as per the rejection of claim 1, and further suggests that luggage items may also be transported on a separate flight (Bates: ¶ 0035), Bates appears to teach this as an option or preference, rather than explicitly teaching that the first target object is not sendable by the first mobile body together with the user. However, Liotta teaches:
wherein the first target object information recognition unit preferentially recognizes as the first target object a target object that is not sendable by the first mobile body together with the user (Liotta: ¶ 0022 “if the passenger vehicle cannot transport the baggage items, of if would be cost inefficient to transport the baggage items with the passengers, then the transportation system may select one or more vehicles separate from the passenger vehicle in the fleet to deliver the baggage items”; also see ¶ 0041)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination whether the object must be transported in a separate vehicle from the user of Liotta in the luggage transportation system of Bates with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “vehicle sharing is not well equipped to handle certain situations, such as when passengers have large quantities of luggage or other equipment” (Liotta: ¶ 0001). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, 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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210133678 A1 to Bates in view of US 20210279664 A1 to Fujii et al. (Fujii).
Claim 5: Bates discloses claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Bates teaches that the passenger may input “a request for pickup and delivery of items purchased during travel (e.g., duty free items, retail items, etc.)” (Bates: ¶ 0033), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Fujii teaches:
comprising a second target object information recognition unit that recognizes, based on the action plan information, a second target object that is used by an action of the user corresponding to the action plan and that is not scheduled to be used after the use in the action plan (Fujii: ¶ 0056-0057 showing predicting/detecting, using a user’s schedule, that an item will be purchased, i.e. used, and be newly added to the baggage of the user at the shop), and
a second target point and a second target time in which pickup of the second target object that has been used is possible (Fujii: ¶ 0056-0057 showing predicting a future position along a route where an item will be purchased and need to be stored, wherein as per ¶ 0051 the schedule DB includes a user schedule with time slots for travel locations along the route and ¶ 0056 “upon arriving at the predicted position, the vehicle 2 may notify the user who has arrived, that new baggage can be stored, by voice audio or visual representation. In this way, the vehicle 2 can store the baggage while user U01 moves, in addition to when user U01 departs. That is, the vehicle 2 can store the baggage of the same user at different times”),
wherein the transport service proposal unit transmits, to the user terminal, second transport service proposal information that proposes use of a second transport service that picks up the second target object in the second target point after the second target time and transports the second target object from the second target point to a second prescribed point by a third mobile body (Fujii: ¶ 0056 “Upon arriving at the predicted position, the vehicle 2 may notify the user terminal 3 that new baggage can be stored at the predicted position. Additionally or alternatively, upon arriving at the predicted position, the vehicle 2 may notify the user who has arrived, that new baggage can be stored, by voice audio or visual representation. In this way, the vehicle 2 can store the baggage while user U01 moves, in addition to when user U01 departs. That is, the vehicle 2 can store the baggage of the same user at different times”; see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0028-0032 showing user terminal, vehicle, and control apparatus/server in communication with one another)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the pickup of an item purchased along the trip that is not needed to be carried by the user, i.e. can be stored/transported to the hotel of Fujii in the luggage transportation system of Bates with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “reduce the amount of baggage carried by the user while the user is moving” (Bates: ¶ 0016), and “improve the ease of movement for the user, and increase the satisfaction of the user” (Bates: ¶ 0082)
Claim 6: Bates/Fujii teach claim 5. Bates, as modified above (such that the second transport service picks up an object no longer needed from the user as per Fujii above), further teaches:
comprising a second transport service corresponding unit that executes second transport service corresponding processing for implementing the second transport service, upon receiving second transport service request information that requests use of the second transport service, the second transport service request information being transmitted from the user terminal (Bates: ¶ 0117-0118 showing an offer provided by a plurality of delivery service providers (from “third party systems”), after which offers may be selected and order transmitted to the service provider; see ¶ 0113, ¶ 0117 showing plurality of delivery service providers for transporting different items, i.e. second transport service; also note that while not relied upon, Fujii also teaches transmitting request to vehicle dispatch service in ¶ 0028-0032, ¶ 0046)
Claim 7: Bates/Fujii teach claim 5. Bates, as modified (as per Fujii above), further teaches:
wherein the transport service proposal unit transmits, to the user terminal, the second transport service proposal information that proposes use of the second transport service for cleaning the second target object that has been used by the user and then transporting the second target object to the second prescribed point (Bates: ¶ 0033 further showing the offers that are generated and provided to the user can be based on an indication that cleaning of the luggage is permitted and/or requested, and also include a request for pickup and delivery of items purchased during travel)
Conclusion
The following references are not relied upon above but are cited as relevant to the instant application:
US 20200394746 A1 generally teaches a system for baggage transportation via autonomous vehicles.
US 20230021470 A1 also teaches a luggage transportation system, wherein luggage may be transported separately from a passenger, after a flight, such that the luggage is transporter from an airport to a hotel, and then transported back from the hotel to the airport upon checkout from the hotel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights