DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “unit” 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) are in Claims 1-12, and consist of the limitations of “a storage unit…”, “a control unit that…”, “a relay base candidate creation unit…”, “a transportation group creation unit…” and a “transportation plan creation unit…”.
Because these claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are directed at use of “a storage unit…”, “a control unit that…”, “a relay base candidate creation unit…”, “a transportation group creation unit…” and a “transportation plan creation unit…”. These units/means (configurations) are not defined in the specification as to what these units (means) would be, other than what functions they perform. For instance, they could be hardware, software, a processor, and this is not defined in the specification. The Specification and drawings show:
“[0030] The control unit 20 is a functional unit embodied by execution of dedicated programs stored in the auxiliary storage apparatus 13 (Fig. 1) by the CPU 10 (Fig. 1). In the case of this embodiment, the control unit 20 includes, as functional units, a relay base candidate creation unit 30, a transportation group creation unit 31, a proposed relay transportation plan creation unit 32, and a proposed relay transportation plan evaluation unit 33 which will be described later. ”
Which is the only description of what these units might be is in the Specification, and the Specification generally states what these units/means are capable of doing, but does not define what these units are, how these perform the limitations of the claims, or even if they are software or hardware. There are no details or description as to how the units would be configured to perform these processes/limitations. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 1-12 recites use of “a storage unit…”, “a control unit that…”, “a relay base candidate creation unit…”, “a transportation group creation unit…” and a “transportation plan creation unit…”. Applicant’s specification is silent as to what this unit may be for these as per the specification above, and as best taken from above, this is instructions/software which is in communication with a CPU. For Examination purposes this will be taken as any hardware or software which can perform the limitations of the claims.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent, and thus the dependents are similarly rejected.
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.
Software Per Se- Claims 1-12, drawn to an apparatus defined merely by units/software, or terms synonymous with software or files, represents functional descriptive material (e.g. data structures or software) per se. Such material is considered non-statutory when claimed without appropriate corresponding structure. Here, in Claims 1 and 7, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the applicant's system elements of an apparatus with units encompasses functions that can be executed entirely as software per se. Programs do not recite a structure, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation can be software which is used for controlling hardware. As currently written, the claimed system lacks structure, and thus is non-statutory. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim they depend on and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the Claims and their dependents are rejected.
Alice - Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitations of stores and retains package information which is information about each of the requested packages, vehicle information which is information about each of transportation vehicles for transporting the packages, and driver information which is information about each of drivers who drive the transportation vehicles, respectively (Collecting and Storing Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and creates the transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route, based on the package information, the vehicle information, and the driver information and allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and allocates a plurality of the transportation vehicles, which perform platooning, or the transportation vehicle for towing a plurality of towed vehicles to the transportation group as necessary (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior, i.e. managing transportation, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a transportation planning apparatus, a storage unit, and a control unit, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Behavior. For example, creating a transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route… and allocating the transportation vehicles encompasses a tow truck fleet manager allocating tow trucks to areas in groups which can overlap for better coverage based on the information available to them, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The transportation planning apparatus, storage unit, and control unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0018] In the embodiment, processing performed by executing a program may be described. Under this circumstance, a computer causes a processor (such as a CPU or a GPU) to execute a program(s) and perform processing defined by the program(s) while using storage resources (such as a memory), interface devices (such as communication ports), and so on. Therefore, the subject of the processing performed by executing the program may be the processor. ”
Which shows that any generic computer can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., as there is no description of the units, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the apparatus, units, etc., nor the receiving, storing, or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of multiple units such as a relay base candidate creation unit and transportation group creation unit, which are all highly generalized as per Applicant’s Specification when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lecue (U.S. Publication No. 2019/030,3857).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Lecue, a system for collaborative logistics using a collaborative logistics map and a knowledge graph, teaches a transportation planning apparatus ([0053-54] device with memory, medium, and units) comprising:
a storage unit ([0054] multiple units are used) that stores and retains package information which is information about each of the requested packages, vehicle information which is information about each of transportation vehicles for transporting the packages, and driver information which is information about each of drivers who drive the transportation vehicles, respectively ([0041] stores product delivery information, delivery information such as route information as in [0062]); and
a control unit ([0054] multiple units used in the system) that creates the transportation plan by forming one or a plurality of transportation groups ([0025] identifying groups of suppliers/delivery organizations that can be used in collaboration) by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route, based on the package information, the vehicle information, and the driver information ([0026] overlapping routes using a map, and [0023] the time slot or range is considered in the map and the overlapping routes) and allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups ([0104] the distribution of goods/packages is allocated to a fleet/group or a particular driver in a fleet/group)
wherein the control unit allocates a plurality of the transportation vehicles, which perform platooning, or the transportation vehicle for towing a plurality of towed vehicles to the transportation group as necessary ([0102] they system allocates vehicles to tow other vehicles or repair another delivery vehicle, or deliver the packages)
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 of this title, 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 2, 5-6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecue (U.S. Publication No. 2019/030,3857) in view of Purohit (U.S. Publication No. 2023/029,7933).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Lecue teaches wherein the control unit includes:
a transportation group creation unit that forms one or a plurality of transportation groups by gathering the packages which have an at least partly overlapping transportation route and which share a common time slot for transportation via the transportation route ([0026] overlapping routes using a map, and [0023] the time slot or range is considered in the map and the overlapping routes) and
a transportation plan creation unit that creates the transportation plan by allocating the transportation vehicle and the driver to each of the created transportation groups ([0104] the distribution of goods/packages is allocated to a fleet/group or a particular driver in a fleet/group),
and a relay base candidate creation unit (as in Claim 1 above),
but it does not explicitly teach to creates a relay base candidate,
Purohit teaches a relay base candidate, which is a candidate for a relay base where the packages to be transported are relayed, for each of the transportation requests and via the relevant relay base candidate as in [0182-183] where a service request is used which defined the requirement of who delivers using intermediary locations.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transportation of good in overlapping areas of Lecue with the transportation of good using similar routes and intermediary locations of Purohit as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to delivering packages, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would lower greenhouse gases and increase profits as taught in [0003-0005] of Purohit.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Although Lecue teaches the transportation of good using multiple routes and overlapping routes in locations, as well as the allocation of drivers as in Claim 1 above, it does not explicitly teach a request or relaying of the items.
Purohit teaches wherein the storage unit stores a request for a means of transport for each of the drivers from a base which is a place of affiliation to a relay base or a delivery destination base ([0216] multiple intermediate waypoints which are optional for selection which are in response to the request of [0183]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transportation of good in overlapping areas of Lecue with the transportation of good using similar routes and intermediary locations of Purohit as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to delivering packages, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would lower greenhouse gases and increase profits as taught in [0003-0005] of Purohit.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Lecue teaches wherein the control unit creates the transportation group in consideration of a restriction on a quantity of the transportation vehicles capable of platooning at the same time or a restriction on a quantity of the towed vehicles which can be towed at the same time, a restriction on packages to be loaded onto each of the transportation vehicles to be platooned or the plurality of transportation vehicles which can be platooned at the same time, or a restriction on packages to be loaded onto the towed vehicles which can be towed at the same time by the transportation vehicle ([0102-103] there is an amount of packages which can be picked up by a replacement, so if they need to tow or repair the other delivery vehicle they do, thus a restriction on what can be brought)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and all other rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230297933 A1
Purohit; Dilip Shriram
SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL PLAN BASED SHIPMENTS
US 20230259870 A1
MANOHAR; Abhijeet et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTI-ENTERPRISE FREIGHT LOAD CONSOLIDATION AND OPTIMIZATION
US 20200005240 A1
KO; Sozen et al.
DELIVERY PLANNING DEVICE, DELIVERY PLANNING SYSTEM, AND DELIVERY PLANNING METHOD
US 20190303857 A1
LECUE; Freddy et al.
SYSTEM FOR COLLABORATIVE LOGISTICS USING A COLLABORATIVE LOGISTICS MAP AND A KNOWLEDGE GRAPH
US 20250140101 A1
Fucci; Conor et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA EXCHANGE SYSTEM
US 20240311745 A1
GUTLAPALLI; Venu et al.
ITEM TRACKING SYSTEM WITH ELECTRONIC TRACKING LABELS THAT DETECTS SHIPMENT FAULTS
US 20240270538 A1
GIL; Julio et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERING OR ACCEPTING A PARCEL AT A ROOFTOP VIA AN AERIAL VEHICLE
US 20240255960 A1
SHIM; Taehyoung et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTONOMOUS DELIVERY ROBOT-BASED DELIVERY SERVICE
US 20240161636 A1
KIMCHI; Gur et al.
Aerial Vehicle Delivery Location
US 20240152995 A1
SIMPSON; Erik M.
Financial Swap Payment Structure Method and System on Transportation Capacity Unit Assets
US 20230059112 A1
ITO; Yutaro
SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CREATING VEHICLE DISPATCH PLAN
US 20230045975 A1
Simpson; Erik Mowery
Financial Swap Index Method and System on Transportation Capacity Units and Trading Derivative Products Based Thereon
US 20220412750 A1
KOLAMBEKAR; AMIT et al.
DYNAMIC RESPONSIVE TRANSIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20220297835 A1
LIM; Seung Han et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HANDLING GOODS BY A GROUP OF COLLABORATING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
US 20200219017 A1
Simpson; Erik M.
MARKET LAYER PRICE QUEUE MAP ROUTING FOR MULTI-LAYERED NODAL NETWORK TOPOLOGY FOR A MULTI-MODAL SECURE FORWARD MARKET AUCTION IN TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY AND SPACE
US 20200011683 A1
Simpson; Erik M
FINANCIAL SWAP INDEX METHOD AND SYSTEM ON TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY UNITS AND TRADING DERIVATIVE PRODUCTS BASED THEREON
US 20110137699 A1
Ben-Ari; Ronen et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CAB MANAGEMENT
US 12459544 B2
Van Der Donk; Johannes Gertrudis Josephus
Flexible combined transport of people and freight
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/10/2026