DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/924,119 was filed on October 23, 2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-016353 filed on February 6, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 is currently pending. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed July 15, 2025. Claims 2-4 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claim 1 and it is withdrawn. Claims 2-4 were cancelled rendering the objection to those claims moot.
112(b):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to claim 1 and it is withdrawn. Claims 2-4 were cancelled rendering the rejection of those claims moot.
101:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to claim 1 and it is withdrawn. Claims 2-4 were cancelled rendering the rejection of those claims moot.
Examiner notes that, transmitting a command to the fifth vehicle to travel in either a first or second mode integrates the abstract idea of assigning delivery routes based on package weight into practical application. Examiner further notes that withdrawal of the 101 rejection relies on a claim interpretation where the fifth vehicle is always assigned a delivery route (and thus, the mode is always set).
103:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to claim 1 and it is withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that further clarification of the claims may result in 103 rejections in the future. Claims 2-4 were cancelled rendering the rejection of those claims moot.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, “the plurality of vehicles include a first vehicle provided with, as a power source, an electric motor without an internal combustion engine, and at least one second vehicle provided with an internal combustion engine as a power source, the at least one second vehicle includes: a third vehicle provided with, as a power source, an internal combustion engine without an electric motor, a fourth vehicle provided with an electric motor and an internal combustion engine as power sources without having an external charging function, and a fifth vehicle being externally chargeable and provided with an electric motor and an internal combustion engine as power sources”. This claim is interpreted according to the second vehicle physically including a third, fourth, and fifth vehicle (e.g. a delivery truck carrying delivery drones). If this interpretation is not intended, then Applicant is encouraged to modify the claim accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the plurality of vehicles include a first vehicle provided with, as a power source, an electric motor without an internal combustion engine” (emphasis added). This limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error and should read, “the plurality of vehicles includes a first vehicle provided with, as a power source, an electric motor without an internal combustion engine” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle when delivery on the first delivery route is less than a total loading weight of packages loaded on the at least one second vehicle when delivery on the second delivery route is started,” (emphasis added). It is unclear what this limitation is intended to mean. Specifically, it is unclear what “when delivery on the first delivery route is” refers to as it appears to be incomplete or grammatically incorrect. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, claim 1 is interpreted to mean “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle when delivery on the first delivery route is started is less than a total loading weight of packages loaded on the at least one second vehicle when delivery on the second delivery route is started,” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle when delivery on the first delivery route is less than a total loading weight of packages loaded on the at least one second vehicle when delivery on the second delivery route is started, a total loading weight of packages to be delivered on the third delivery route is larger than a total loading weight of packages to be delivered on the second delivery route” (emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites, “calculate, for each delivery route, a total loading weight of packages to be delivered at the start of delivery, determine whether the total loading weight of a delivery route is less than a predetermined threshold” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the “total loading weight” loaded on a vehicle is intended to be the same as the “total loading weight” of packages to be delivered because is unclear how the start of a delivery route differs from the start of delivery. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, claim 1 is interpreted to mean that the “total loading weight” refers to the same weight. Appropriate correction is required. If Applicant intends a different meaning, Examiner respectfully requests that the terms be sufficiently distinguished from each other.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “calculate, for each delivery route …” (p. 3, lines 6-17), which appears to be steps for calculating a total loading weight, comparing it to a threshold, and assigning a route to a vehicle accordingly. However, claim 1 previously recites, “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle …” (p. 2, lines 20-25), which appears to recite a relationship between total loading weights, delivery vehicles, and routes. These limitations make it unclear how routes are assigned. It is unclear because there appear to be conflicts/inconsistency regarding how loads and routes are assigned to vehicles with respect to the weight of the packages. For example, what if the loads for all of the delivery routes are above the predetermined threshold? The claim appears to indicate that packages are always loaded on the first vehicle (i.e., “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle” emphasis added). However, this conflicts with the route assignment process where the second vehicle is assigned the route (i.e., “assign, in a case where the total loading weight of a delivery route is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold, the delivery route to the at least one second vehicle”). Examiner notes that the lack of clarity in the claim language (“calculate, for each delivery route …” and “a total loading weight of packages loaded on the first vehicle …”) is due in part to the lack of clarity regarding the total loading weights as described above. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, claim 1 is interpreted to mean that routes can be assigned based on either the relationship of the weights, the predefined threshold, or both. Appropriate correction is required.
Lastly, it is unclear how many routes are assigned and to which vehicles the routes are assigned. Claim 1 recites, “determine a delivery route of each of the third vehicle, the fourth vehicle, and the fifth vehicle such that the second delivery route is preferentially assigned, out of the second delivery route and the third delivery route, in order of the third vehicle, the fourth vehicle, and the fifth vehicle” (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites three delivery routes (“delivery routes include a first delivery route, a second delivery route, and a third delivery route”) and five vehicles (“the plurality of vehicles include …” p. 2, lines 6-17). It is unclear how the second and third routes are assigned to the third, fourth, and fifth vehicles. For the purposes of examination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, claim 1 is interpreted to mean that each vehicle is assigned a route, but only the process for assigning the second and third routes is defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner knows no art which teaches or suggests, alone or in combination with other art, all of the limitations in claim 1. The closest prior art is:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0394624 to Borhan et al. (Borhan) teaches, a method for optimizing operation of a fleet of vehicles, including multiple powertrain types (e.g. hybrid, combustion, electric), that includes optimized routing and powertrain-route matching based at least in part on payload weight.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0114588 to Radetzki et al. (Radetzki) teaches, energy-efficient delivery where a lower vs. higher weight shipment is assigned to a delivery vehicle based at least in part on the vehicle configuration.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0254988 to Styles et al. (Styles) teaches, optimizing delivery routes such that heavier packages are delivered first.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0388167 to Chase et al. (Chase) teaches, assigning heavier loads aerial vehicles based on the maximum payload weight that the aerial vehicle is capable of carrying.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0322198 to Telford (Telford) teaches, setting the mode on a vehicle based on cargo load.
NPL “Planning a mixed fleet of electric and conventional vehicles for urban freight with routing and replacement considerations” by Al-dal'ain et al. (Al-dal'ain) teaches a comprehensive framework for planning a mixed fleet of electric and conventional vehicles that takes routing and replacement decisions into consideration.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights