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 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 were amended. Claims 2 and 6 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, the present application claims priority under 35 U.S.C.§119 to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-185417 filed on October 30, 2023.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant’s remarks indicate that the claims were amended to avoid § 112(f) interpretation. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are amended to recite a processor (a structural element) performing the functions of the generic placeholders previously recited and interpreted under § 112(f). Therefore, the previous § 112(f) interpretations no longer apply.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-7 (pgs. 6-16, remarks filed 2/17/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One (pgs. 7-9, remarks filed 2/17/2026).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The test at Step 2A Prong One is whether or not the claim recites limitations that fall under one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. As seen in the updated § 101 rejection below, the limitations to obtain an action plan information…the action plan information indicating an action plan of the user including movement by a first mobile body; analyze the action plan information to identify movement of the user by the first mobile body and to identify an event schedule after the movement; determine, from the action plan information, a departure time of the user from a first prescribed point; recognize, based on the action plan information, a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body from at least one luggage of the user, and determine a first target point and a first target time at which the first target object is scheduled to be used in association with the event; output [transmit…], to the user…first transport service proposal information that proposes use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from the first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body different from the first mobile body receive…first transportation service request information that requests use of the first transport service; and execute, based on the action plan information and the departure time corresponding to departure, a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point and to transport the first target object to the first target point by the first target time, describe “certain methods of organizing human activity” (i.e. a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people, characterized as acquiring an action plan of a user and recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, in order to output 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, receiving a first transportation service request and requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims address a technological problem (pg. 8, remarks). “Coordinating separate vehicles/mobile bodies for passenger and luggage transport…Predicting future locations and timing requirements based on movement data from autonomous systems, and…Real-time coordination between independent transportation service providers” are commercial problems, not problems specific to any particular technology. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to technology addressing any particular technological problem. The examiner also respectfully disagrees that the argued “acquires…” and “recognizes” steps cannot be performed mentally (pgs. 8-9. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the human mind can acquire information and perform analysis (recognize) information from that information. The claims do not even recite any elements pertaining to “automated data acquisition from sensors/systems tracking mobile body movement” as argued.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application (pgs. 9-14, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. “Multi-modal transportation coordination technology” (pgs. 9-10, remarks) is not a technology field improved by the claimed invention – instead, this is a commercial process for arranging transportation for luggage that is being carried out within a computer environment by a generic processor, servers, and user terminal. The alleged “autonomous coordination,” (pg. 10, remarks) as reflected in the claims, is nothing more than the automation of the abstract idea a generic processor, servers, and user terminal. Even if the claims improve “transportation logistics,” and reduces baggage needed to be carried by the user to improve ease of movement for the user (pg. 10, remarks), the claims at best describe an improvement to the underlying commercial interaction/business process, rather than an improvement to any particular technology or to any of the additional elements themselves. These purported benefits are not technical in nature, but instead are logistical/commercial improvements. See MPEP 2106.05(a), showing “[T]he judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” and “[I]t 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.”
The claims do not recite a specific technical improvement to “predictive object recognition,” (pg. 10, remarks) but instead simply recite a highly generic limitation to “recognize, based on the action plan information, a first target object…,” which describes the abstract idea itself. And as already addressed above, providing transport service proposals and coordinating with transport service providers also merely describes the abstract idea itself. That the “transmitting” and exchange of data is performed by a processor between a user terminal and server provider systems or servers (pg. 11, remarks), merely describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive and transmit data. The courts have further recognized that limitations for “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. In response to applicant’s argument that “These are not merely generic processors performing generic functions. They are specifically configured components working in coordination to achieve the claimed functionality” (pg. 11, remarks) – this only further describes the implementation of the abstract idea using generic computers. Applicant’s spec. filed 10/21/2024, describes the computer systems and processor in a manner that does not indicate anything more than a generic server/computer (¶ 0015 “The movement support system 1, the schedule server 210, and the transport service server 220 are computer systems each including a processor, a memory, a communication unit, or the like”; also see ¶ 0026 “The movement support system 1 is a computer system including a processor 10, a memory 20, a communication unit 30, or the like. The movement support system 1, as described above, uses the communication unit 30 to perform communication among the user terminal 50, the schedule server 210, and the transport service server 220 through the communication network 200.”) Nothing in the specification indicates anything beyond a generic computer programmed to apply the abstract idea.
Nothing in the recited subject matter of the claims reflects applicant’s general argument that the invention recites a “Specific configuration of recognition and coordination units that enable autonomous multi-modal transportation with predictive timing,” (pgs. 11-13, remarks) and the claims do not solve a specific technological problem similar to DDR Holdings or improve computer functionality similar to Enfish. The technical elements in the claims are not performing anything beyond the functions of general-purpose computers programmed to apply the abstract idea. Furthermore, the timing and coordination requirements discussed (pg. 13, remarks) at most describe timing related to coordinating transportation as part of the abstract idea rather than improvements to technology, and as already addressed above, “provide a specific solution to transportation coordination problems” (pgs. 14, remarks) at most describes an improvement to the underlying commercial/business process (i.e. the abstract idea).
Applicant further argues that the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception, i.e. abstract idea (pgs. 14-16, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that acquiring movement data, recognizing objects, coordinating transport, and ensuring time critical delivery coordination add significantly more (pgs. 14-15, remarks) – but these argued limitations as reflected in the claims merely describe the abstract idea itself, which does not provide significantly more. Furthermore, implementing coordination of transportation and providing transportation proposals using a generic processor does not amount to an unconventional combination of elements (pg. 15, remarks). Even if the specification indicates that previous systems are not well-equipped to handle passengers with large quantities of luggage (pgs. 15-16, remarks), this is fundamentally a commercial problem pertaining to a transportation process, not a technological problem being solved by the claimed invention through a specific technical mechanism. Furthermore, the alleged technical integration between user terminals, action plan acquisition units, object recognition units, transport service proposal units, and multiple transport service corresponding units (pg. 16, remarks) is not only not present in the claims, but the “specific technical integration” is alleged merely in conclusory manner without any specific recitation of what limitations in the claim are being referred to. Nothing in the claims suggests a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that provides a technical improvement.
Therefore, the § 101 rejection is maintained over current claims 1, 3-5 and 7. Please see the updated § 101 rejection below.
35 USC § 102 and § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 102 rejections of claims 1-2 and the previous § 103 rejections of claims 3-7 (pgs. 16-21, remarks filed 2/17/2026) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-5, and 7 below as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
In addition, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s specific argument that Bates does not teach the limitation to “recognize, based on the action plan information, a first target object…” (pgs. 18-19, remarks). First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “1. Acquiring comprehensive action plan information that includes movement by a mobile body,” “2. Automatically recognizing or determining which objects will be used based on analysis of the action plan,” and “3. Determining the use point and use time based on the action plan information rather than explicit user input”) are not recited as described here in the argued “recognize” limitations of the rejected claim(s). 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). Nonetheless, as cited in the current § 103 rejection of claim 1 below, Bates does teach the recited limitation of claim 1 to recognize, based on the action plan information (Bates: ¶ 0073, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0090 showing luggage identifying information linked or stored with the itinerary information; ¶ 0080 “The itinerary information may also include luggage identifying information of one or more pieces of luggage that has been checked in as part of the itinerary”, and ¶ 0079 “The itinerary information may also identify accommodations and/or intermediate destinations (e.g., rental car locations, or other locations where the passenger may travel following completion of their flight)”), a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body from at least one luggage of the user (Bates: ¶ 0082-0087, ¶ 0094-0096 showing retrieving luggage identifying information and luggage redirection/delivery information identifying at least one piece of luggage, the destination for the piece of luggage, and the delivery instructions for the piece of luggage, i.e. identifying and analyzing information on selected pieces of luggage and input delivery time/destinations for each piece of luggage after the flight; also further see ¶ 0102-0104, ¶ 0116-0118 showing receiving and evaluating received delivery preferences information identifying information on each piece of luggage, and the desired delivery location and delivery time for each piece of luggage, as part of generating a luggage redirection offer), and determine a first target point and a first target time at which the first target object is scheduled to be used in associated with the event (Bates: ¶ 0084-0085, ¶ 0116-0118 showing determining destination location and delivery time by which the item should arrive at the destination location, for each piece of luggage; e.g. ¶ 0114-0116 showing golf glubs for a planned trip to golf course).
Note that “recognizing” is not limited to some particular technical mechanism as currently recited and thus making a determination, analyzing, or even receiving specific data identifying a particular luggage item of the user’s luggage from the itinerary information should be delivered to a specific destination from the airport (i.e. to a particular location where it is used after the flight), reads on the argued limitation.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-5 and 7 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “execute, based on the action plan information and the departure time corresponding to departure, a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point” – however, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean that 1) the process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point is performed before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point, or 2) the transport service company receives the first target object at the first prescribed point before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point, and thus the claim is amenable to at least two potential claim constructions.
Similarly, claim 5 recites “executes, based on the action plan information, a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the second target object at the second target point after the second target time” – but it is unclear whether “after the second target time” is intended to apply to when the process of requesting and arranging takes place, or when the “receive the second target object” takes place, and thus the claim is amenable to at least two potential claim constructions.
See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211, (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008), holding “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions” the claim may be rejected as indefinite during prosecution. For the purpose of further examination, the indefinite limitations of claims 1 and 5 above are interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover either situation (e.g. either when the requesting/arranging occurs, or when receiving the object occurs).
Clams 3-5 and 7 depend from claim 1, and claim 7 depends from claim 5 – therefore, claims 3-4 and 7 are also rejected under § 112(b).
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, 3-5, and 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, 3-5, and 7 recite “A movement support system…comprising…a processor configured to” (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 to:
obtain an action plan information…the action plan information indicating an action plan of the user including movement by a first mobile body;
analyze the action plan information to identify movement of the user by the first mobile body and to identify an event schedule after the movement;
determine, from the action plan information, a departure time of the user from a first prescribed point;
recognize, based on the action plan information, a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body from at least one luggage of the user, and determine a first target point and a first target time at which the first target object is scheduled to be used in association with the event;
output…to the user…first transport service proposal information that proposes use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from the first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body different from the first mobile body
receive…first transportation service request information that requests use of the first transport service; and
execute, based on the action plan information and the departure time corresponding to departure, a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point and to transport the first target object to the first target point by the first target time
The limitations of independent claim 1 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (characterized for brevity as acquiring an action plan of a user and recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, in order to output 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, receiving a first transportation service request and requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object) 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 and recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, in order to output 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, receiving a first transportation service request and requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object) 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 requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object for the user) and managing interactions between people (managing interactions between the user and the system/transportation service for acquiring information and proposing use of a transport service, receive a request for the first transport service, and request and arrange the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object for the user), 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 “obtain” and “receive” steps amount to observations, while the “analyze,” “recognize” step falls under evaluations, judgments, or opinions. Furthermore, the “outputting” (corresponding to “transmitting” which will be further analyzed under prong two and Step 2B) function is analogous to outputting a proposal to a user, and could be performed by a person 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). Similarly, “execute…a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object…and to transport the first target object” describes simply communicating and coordinating with a transport company, which is capable of being performed via the human mind either with or without the use of written communications (e.g. a customer or intermediary person requesting and arranging service from the transport company). 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:
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“A movement support system that performs communication among a user terminal used by a user, a schedule server, and a transport service server through a communication network,”
“comprising: a processor configured to…”
information stored in the schedule server
“transmit, to the user terminal…” and “receive, from the user terminal…”
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 and recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, in order to output 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, receiving a first transportation service request and requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A movement support system…comprising: a processor configured to…,” and “a user terminal” of claim 1). 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.”
The limitations for using the processor to “transmit, to the user terminal…,” “receive, from the user terminal…,” and indicating action plan information is stored in the schedule server, merely amount to the use of a generic processor and other computing devices such as a user terminal, and servers (schedule server and transport service server) in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, the limitations generally specifying that the movement support system “performs communication among a user terminal used by a user, a schedule server, and a transport service server through a communication network” simply amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, and does not add anything beyond the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to exchange information. 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, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
While already addressed above, the examiner notes that requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive and transport an object is not an additional element, but instead merely describes a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people, in addition to a process which can be performed via the human mind, and fall under the abstract idea itself.
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 and recognizing a first target object to be used at a first target point and first target time based on the action plan, in order to output 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, receiving a first transportation service request and requesting and arranging the first transport service to receive and transport the first target object) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A movement support system…comprising: a processor configured to…,” and “a user terminal” of claim 1). 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.”
As above, the limitations for using the processor to “transmit, to the user terminal…,” “receive, from the user terminal…,” and indicating action plan information is stored in the schedule server, merely amount to the use of a generic processor and other computing devices such as a user terminal, and servers (schedule server and transport service server) in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, the limitations generally specifying that the movement support system “performs communication among a user terminal used by a user, a schedule server, and a transport service server through a communication network” simply amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, and does not add anything beyond the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to exchange information. 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 provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
The courts have further recognized that limitations for “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II), citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) represent well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. While already addressed above, the examiner notes that requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive and transport an object is not an additional element, but instead merely describes a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people, in addition to a process which can be performed via the human mind, and fall under the abstract idea itself.
Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not provide anything that amounts to significantly more. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3-5 and 7:
Dependent claims 3-5 and 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 3-5 and 7 recite further limitations describing the abstract idea, for:
“performs a process of excluding that 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, and…performs the process of excluding before generating the first transport service proposal information” (claim 3)
“preferentially recognizes as the first target object a target object that is not sendable by the first mobile body together with the user” (claim 4)
“recognizes, based on the action plan information…. (outputs)…second transport service proposal information….and receives…second transportation service request information…and executes…a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the second target object…and to transport the second target object…” (claim 5)
“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” (claim 7)
Claims 3-4 recite the performance of the abstract idea above using generic computer components (“the processor”). Claims 5 and 7 carries out the abstract idea using generic computer components (“the processor”) and further recites the use of computers such as the user terminal and the process to receive and transmit information, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
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, 3-5, and 7 are ineligible under § 101.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210133678 A1 to Bates in view of US 20200104964 A1 to Yasui et al. (Yasui), and further in view of US 20230021470 A1 to Kitada et al. (Kitada).
Claim 1: Bates teaches:
A movement support system that performs communication (Bates: Figs. 1, ¶ 0038 showing luggage redirection system 100) among a user terminal used by a user (Bates: Figs. 1, 3, and 6, ¶ 0040 showing user interface system 130 access through user devices which may include “any PEDs having wireless communication capability, such as cellular phones, smart phones, tablet computers, laptop computers, and other portable electronic devices (PEDs), a digital electronic media device, wearable smart electronic device, smart watch, any mobile electronic device, and the like. FIG. 9 illustrates an example computing device 900 that may be implemented as a user interface system 130,” i.e. a user terminal), a schedule server (Bates: ¶ 0043 showing platform server 110 may comprise or be communicatively coupled with one or more data stores 114, with ¶ 0043 further showing one or more servers that manage the one or more data stores 114 and which provide data to the platform server 110; ¶ 0079 showing data store stores itinerary information, i.e. schedule information), and a transport service server (Bates: Fig. 1, ¶ 0035-0036, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0042 showing third party systems 150 including transportation service provider systems, which as per ¶ 0042 “External systems 150 may include their own dedicated servers 152”) through a communication network (Bates: Fig. 1, ¶ 0038-0042 showing network 120 for communications between the platform server (at least a schedule server), external systems (transport service server), and user interface system (user terminal)), comprising:
a processor (Bates: ¶ 0022, ¶ 0007, ¶ 0138-0143 showing one or more processors) configured to:
obtain an action plan information stored in the schedule server, the action plan information indicating an action plan of the user including movement by a first mobile body (Bates: ¶ 0079-¶ 0081, ¶ 0092, ¶ 0116-0118 showing receiving itinerary identification information and changes to itinerary information, which may including flight information, i.e. movement by a first mobile body; ¶ 0079 specifying “The itinerary information may identify passenger(s) involved, departure airport(s), departure time(s), flight information for each leg, connecting information, arrival airport(s), arrival time(s), delays affecting times, reroutes affecting locations, etc. The itinerary information may also identify accommodations and/or intermediate destinations (e.g., rental car locations, or other locations where the passenger may travel following completion of their flight), for example, where such arrangements are made through the entity that generated the itinerary information”);
analyze the action plan information to identify movement of the user by the first mobile body and to identify an event schedule after the movement; (Bates: ¶ 0079 “The itinerary information may also identify accommodations and/or intermediate destinations (e.g., rental car locations, or other locations where the passenger may travel following completion of their flight)”; and ¶ 0083-0085 showing analytics module which evaluates the itinerary information, specifically ¶ 0085 “the analytics module 314 may evaluate a passenger's itinerary information determine travel variables such as an estimated time of arrival, delays in travel plans, and/or reroutes to propose a delivery location and delivery time”)
With respect to the limitation:
determine, from the action plan information, a departure time of the user from a first prescribed point;
Bates teaches the itinerary including an arrival time at the airport (Bates: ¶ 0025, ¶ 0079), where the passenger immediately departs upon arrival at the airport 516 (Bates: ¶ 0114), and even further teaches that “The itinerary information may identify passenger(s) involved, departure airport(s), departure time(s), flight information for each leg, connecting information, arrival airport(s), arrival time(s), delays affecting times, reroutes affecting locations, etc. The itinerary information may also identify accommodations and/or intermediate destinations (e.g., rental car locations, or other locations where the passenger may travel following completion of their flight)” (Bates: ¶ 0079), which highly suggests but does not explicitly teach a departure time of the user from the arrival/destination airport.
However, Yasui teaches determining, based on a travel schedule including a reservation (i.e. an event scheduled by the user after arrival at the airport), a pick-up time from an airport, i.e. “a departure time of the user from a first prescribed point” (Yasui: ¶ 0092; also see ¶ 0081, ¶ 0128-0133, ¶ 0008-0009). 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 a pickup/departure time from a first prescribed point of Yasui in the transportation system of Bates with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “allowing a vehicle to arrive in time for a designated arrival time, with the facility set as a destination or a departure place, on the basis of the content of the reservation for the facility” (Yasui: ¶ 0009).
Note: The “first prescribed point” is interpreted, in view of the cited references above, as covering an arrival airport location (e.g. see Bates: Fig. 5a-5b showing airport point 516 from which the user departs).
Bates, as modified above, further teaches:
recognize, based on the action plan information (Bates: ¶ 0073, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0090 showing luggage identifying information linked or stored with the itinerary information; ¶ 0080 “The itinerary information may also include luggage identifying information of one or more pieces of luggage that has been checked in as part of the itinerary”, and ¶ 0079 “The itinerary information may also identify accommodations and/or intermediate destinations (e.g., rental car locations, or other locations where the passenger may travel following completion of their flight)”), a first target object used by the user after movement by the first mobile body from at least one luggage of the user (Bates: ¶ 0082-0087, ¶ 0094-0096 showing retrieving luggage identifying information and luggage redirection/delivery information identifying at least one piece of luggage, the destination for the piece of luggage, and the delivery instructions for the piece of luggage, i.e. identifying and analyzing information on selected pieces of luggage and input delivery time/destinations for each piece of luggage after the flight; also further see ¶ 0102-0104, ¶ 0116-0118 showing receiving and evaluating received delivery preferences information identifying information on each piece of luggage, and the desired delivery location and delivery time for each piece of luggage, as part of generating a luggage redirection offer), and determine a first target point and a first target time at which the first target object is scheduled to be used in associated with the event (Bates: ¶ 0084-0085, ¶ 0116-0118 showing determining destination location and delivery time by which the item should arrive at the destination location, for each piece of luggage; e.g. ¶ 0114-0116 showing golf glubs for a planned trip to golf course);
transmit, to the user terminal, first transport service proposal information that proposes use of a first transport service that transports the first target object from the first prescribed point to the first target point by the first target time by using a second mobile body different from the first mobile body (Bates: ¶ 0083-0087, ¶ 0100-0101 showing transmitting a luggage redirection offer proposing a transportation service provider transports one or more pieces of the user’s luggage from the airport to their respective specified destination(s) ; see Fig. 5A, 5B, ¶ 0113-0118 showing via a vehicle of the transportation service provider; see ¶ 0097, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0074, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0116-0118 showing the delivery is made to the designated delivery point by a specified time that each respective item is needed as input by the user);
receive, from the user terminal (Bates: ¶ 0032, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0091 showing passenger device), first transportation service request information that requests use of the first transport service (Bates: ¶ 0115 “while aircraft 514 is in route to arrival airport 516, the passenger may access the luggage redirection system 100 (step 410 of FIG. 4) to schedule and/or modify delivery services while in route”; also see ¶ 0102 showing “the data management module 312 receives a passenger selection of one or more luggage redirection offers. The passenger may select one luggage redirection offer for one or more pieces of luggage associated with the itinerary” and ¶ 0103); and
With respect to the remaining limitation:
execute, based on the action plan information and the departure time corresponding to departure, a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point and to transport the first target object to the first target point by the first target time
Bates teaches execute, based on the action plan information (Bates: ¶ 0085, ¶ 0093-0094, ¶ 0099, ¶ 0102 showing itinerary information used/involved in the process for determination luggage redirection offers and arranging with transportation service providers)…a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the first target object at the first prescribed point (Bates: ¶ 0091-0104 showing process for requesting, selecting and arranging a delivery order with the transport service company, with ¶ 0103-0104 showing following passenger selection of an offer, delivery instructions for a delivery order are generated and communicated to the delivery service provider; ¶ 0111-0113 showing the delivery service provide picks up the luggage to be delivered/redirected at the arrival airport) before a time when the user departs from the first prescribed point (Bates: ¶ 0091 “any time prior to collecting the luggage at baggage claim at a final arrival airport, the passenger may wish to redirect their luggage from previously arranged services…,” i.e. prior to departing the arrival airport) and to transport the first target object to the first target point by the first target time (Bates: ¶ 0111-0113 and ¶ 0118 showing the delivery service provider delivers the one or more pieces of luggage to the respective destination, which as per ¶ 0116-0118 showing selected/desired delivery time, i.e. a time by which the customer requires the item to be delivered at the required delivery destination for each piece of luggage) – but Bates/Yasui merely lack any mention of a user’s departure time from the arrival airport in relation to requesting and arranging the transportation.
However, Kitada teaches execute, based at least in part on a departure time corresponding to departure (Kitada: ¶ 0055-0058 delivery source/delivery company receives item prior to the user departing the departure place, which as per ¶ 0091 is an airport), a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive a user’s luggage item at an arrival airport and transport it to a specified destination at a specified time (Kitada: ¶ 0055-0065, ¶ 0097, Fig. 1, showing user requests delivery service to collect and deliver luggage to a destination at a specific time). 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 user providing the luggage for delivery prior to departure from the airport, for delivery to a final delivery destination of Kitada in the transportation system of Bates/Yasui with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “improving convenience of the delivery service to the user” (Kitada: ¶ 0057).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210133678 A1 to Bates in view of US 20200104964 A1 to Yasui et al. (Yasui), further in view of US 20230021470 A1 to Kitada et al. (Kitada), and further in view of US 20220414811 A1 to Liotta.
Claim 3: Bates/Yasui/Kitada teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, while Bates generally teaches separate destinations and/or delivery times for each of the luggage items (Bates: ¶ 0113 showing “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”), Bates/Yasui/Kitada do not explicitly teach the following limitations. However, Liotta teaches:
wherein the processor performs a process of excluding that 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)),
and the processor performs the process of excluding before generating the first transport proposal information (Liotta: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0029, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0042 showing multiple baggage delivery options are subsequently determined and presented to the user)
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 as part of determining baggage delivery options presented to the user of Liotta in the luggage transportation system of Bates/Yasui/Kitada 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/Yasui/Kitada teach 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 processor 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/Yasui/Kitada 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210133678 A1 to Bates in view of US 20200104964 A1 to Yasui et al. (Yasui), further in view of US 20230021470 A1 to Kitada et al. (Kitada), and further in view of US 20210279664 A1 to Fujii et al. (Fujii).
Claim 5: Bates/Yasui/Kitada teach 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:
wherein the processor 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”),
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), and
receives, from the user terminal, second transportation service request information that requests use of the second transport service (Fujii: ¶ 0032, ¶ 0046-0048, ¶ 0061-0062 showing request to vehicle dispatch service to pickup and transport the baggage),
and executes, based on the action plan information (Fujii: ¶ 0051, ¶ 0069 showing based on information from a schedule DB), a process of requesting and arranging the transport service company to receive the second target object at the second target point after the second target time and to transport the second target object to the second prescribed point (Fujii: executing process of transmitting request and arranging vehicle dispatch service in ¶ 0028-0032, ¶ 0046-0048, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0061-0062)
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 based on a user request of Fujii in the luggage transportation system of Bates/Yasui/Kitada 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 7: Bates/Yasui/Kitada/Fujii teach claim 5. Bates, (as modified by Fujii in the rejection of claim 5 above), further teaches:
wherein the processor 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 cited as relevant to the instant application:
US20230011955A1 – generally teaches delivering an item based on an event schedule of a user
US20180350024A1 – mobility as a service system which simultaneously transports a passenger and their baggage in one or more vehicles, which may be transported along different routes or held in a vehicle and redirected to a user later on, while a user travels along route
US20220335556A1 – a customer continues on their itinerary to multiple intermediate destination/activities, while their baggage is delivered to a final destination
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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