DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed June 23, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20; and canceled claims 4, 11, and 18. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20, are pending in the current application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 8 and 16-20 were objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claims and hereby withdraws the objections from the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth providing content to a customer waiting for a delivery, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The steps and limitations as claimed is executed by “an information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to establish communication by the communication interface,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 1); “an information processing apparatus having a processor,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause an information processing apparatus having a processor to execute operations,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “artificial intelligence.” This limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 15, “artificial intelligence” is understood to comprise a system that incorporates a form of machine learning (ML), deep learning, natural language processing (NLP), etc. Here, the claims recite that artificial intelligence is used to “predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered, set the predicted time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered, and deliver the highlight part of the viewed content to the terminal apparatus.” The original disclosure describes the such predictions are undertaken by the controller (see Par. [0052]-[0055], controller 23). The disclosure does not discuss or mention any form of artificial intelligence. While the original disclosure states that there are computer programs that execute different aspects of the claimed invention, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that an “artificial intelligence” makes any of these determinations. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, which depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, inherit the deficiencies noted for claims 1, 8, and 15.
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, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are drawn to a machine, claims 8-10 and 12-14 are drawn to a process, and claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are drawn to an article of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 15) recites/describes the following steps:
“when delivery of a package to a designated delivery point is not completed by a scheduled delivery time, provide to … a customer who has ordered the package with a content that is set to be viewable by the customer, during delay time from the scheduled delivery time to a delivery completion time at which the delivery of the package is completed;”
“when the provided content is being viewed…, …predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered, set the predicted time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered, and deliver the highlight part of the viewed content…;” and
“automatically terminate the content … at the delivery completion time, at which the delivery of the package to the delivery point has been completed.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth providing content to a customer waiting for a delivery, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the content is video, animation, music, and/or an electronic book,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “provide…a discount service limited during the delay time at a predetermined website that sells goods or services” that further defines the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “provide… an incentive in an amount corresponding to a length of the delay time” that further defines the abstract idea. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the incentive is a service point, mileage, video viewing time, a coupon, a lottery, and/or a charged item for a game” that further defines the abstract idea. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “upon receiving…a postponement request to postpone a delivery time, notify… a scheduled delivery time set in response to the postponement request,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “an information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to establish communication by the communication interface,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 1); “an information processing apparatus having a processor,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause an information processing apparatus having a processor to execute operations,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 15).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to establish communication by the communication interface,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 1); “an information processing apparatus having a processor,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause an information processing apparatus having a processor to execute operations,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to establish communication by the communication interface,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 1); “an information processing apparatus having a processor,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause an information processing apparatus having a processor to execute operations,” “a terminal apparatus owned by a customer,” and “artificial intelligence,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tazume (US 2023/0196263 A1) in view of Fear et al. (US 2025/0047910 A1), hereinafter Fear.
Regarding claim 1, Tazume discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a communication interface; and a processor (Par. [0053]) configured to establish communication by the communication interface (Par. [0034], Each of the delivery machine 1, the information processing server 2, and the user terminal 3 can be connected to a communication network NW; Par. [0053]), wherein the processor is configured to:
when delivery of a package to a designated delivery point is not completed by a scheduled delivery time (Par. [0060], in a case where the recipient feels dissatisfied when viewing the map image presented by the delivery machine position presenting unit 231, such as a case where there is a plurality of delivery destinations and the delivery machine 1 is stopped at a delivery destination of another user for a long time),
provide to a terminal apparatus owned by a customer who has ordered the package (Par. [0075], Here, the content providing unit 233 may determine whether or not the delivery status of the delivery machine 1 is delivery in progress in response to the provision request from the user terminal 3, and provide the content specified in step S2 to the user terminal 3 in a case where the delivery status is determined to be delivery in progress (that is, after waiting until the delivery status changes to delivery in progress)) with a content that is set to be viewable by the customer (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game),
during delay time from the scheduled delivery time to a delivery completion time at which the delivery of the package is completed (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress); and
automatically terminate the content to the terminal apparatus at the delivery completion time, at which the delivery of the package to the delivery point has been completed (Par. [0061], the content providing unit 233 may transmit, to the user terminal 3, control data (including data indicating an output stop time) for stopping the output in accordance with the time when the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination).
Tazume discloses determine and set a time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered (Par. [0070], calculates the delivery waiting time until the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination of the article on the basis of, for example, the scheduled arrival time at the delivery destination of the delivery machine 1 (step S1); Par. [0071], in a case of specifying content of a size, a type, or a reproduction time according to the delivery waiting time, the content specifying unit 232 determines whether or not the delivery waiting time is y minutes (for example, 30 minutes) or more) and deliver the content to the terminal apparatus at the time period (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress).
Tazume does not explicitly disclose using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered. Fear teaches using artificial intelligence (Par. [0080]) to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered (Par. [0055], The duration of the supplemental content sequence may be determined and compared to the time period to determine whether or not the duration exceeds the time period 550. If not, the selected supplemental content element may be added to the supplemental content sequence 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery system of Tazume to include the prediction abilities of Fear to teach “when the provided content is being viewed on the terminal apparatus, using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered, set the predicted time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered, and deliver the highlight part of the viewed content to the terminal apparatus,” 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. Fears discusses a need exists in providing content to uses in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider (Fear, Par. [0001]). Incorporating prediction abilities to determine time periods to deliver content to a user would enable a delivery system as disclosed in Tazume to provide content to users in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider.
Regarding claim 2, Tazume discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tazume discloses wherein the content is video, animation, music, and/or an electronic book (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game).
Regarding claim 3, Tazume discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to further provide the terminal apparatus with a discount service limited during the delay time at a predetermined website that sells goods or services (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Regarding claim 5, Tazume discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide the terminal apparatus with an amount corresponding to a length of the delay time (Par. [0059], for the content of the type according to the delivery waiting time, for example, a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type may be used. FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type).
Regarding claim 6, Tazume discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tazume discloses wherein the incentive is a service point, mileage, video viewing time, a coupon, a lottery, and/or a charged item for a game (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Regarding claim 8, Tazume discloses an information processing method comprising, when delivery of a package to a designated delivery point is not completed by a scheduled delivery time (Par. [0060], in a case where the recipient feels dissatisfied when viewing the map image presented by the delivery machine position presenting unit 231, such as a case where there is a plurality of delivery destinations and the delivery machine 1 is stopped at a delivery destination of another user for a long time),
providing, by an information processing apparatus having a processor (Par. [0034], Each of the delivery machine 1, the information processing server 2, and the user terminal 3 can be connected to a communication network NW; Par. [0053]), to a terminal apparatus owned by a customer who has ordered the package (Par. [0075], Here, the content providing unit 233 may determine whether or not the delivery status of the delivery machine 1 is delivery in progress in response to the provision request from the user terminal 3, and provide the content specified in step S2 to the user terminal 3 in a case where the delivery status is determined to be delivery in progress (that is, after waiting until the delivery status changes to delivery in progress)) with a content that is set to be viewable by the customer (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game),
during delay time from the scheduled delivery time to a delivery completion time at which the delivery of the package is completed (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress); and
automatically terminate the content to the terminal apparatus at the delivery completion time, at which the delivery of the package to the delivery point has been completed (Par. [0061], the content providing unit 233 may transmit, to the user terminal 3, control data (including data indicating an output stop time) for stopping the output in accordance with the time when the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination).
Tazume discloses determine and set a time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered (Par. [0070], calculates the delivery waiting time until the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination of the article on the basis of, for example, the scheduled arrival time at the delivery destination of the delivery machine 1 (step S1); Par. [0071], in a case of specifying content of a size, a type, or a reproduction time according to the delivery waiting time, the content specifying unit 232 determines whether or not the delivery waiting time is y minutes (for example, 30 minutes) or more) and deliver the content to the terminal apparatus at the time period (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress).
Tazume does not explicitly disclose using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered. Fear teaches using artificial intelligence (Par. [0080]) to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered (Par. [0055], The duration of the supplemental content sequence may be determined and compared to the time period to determine whether or not the duration exceeds the time period 550. If not, the selected supplemental content element may be added to the supplemental content sequence 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery system of Tazume to include the prediction abilities of Fear to teach “when the provided content is being viewed on the terminal apparatus, using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered, set the predicted time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered, and deliver the highlight part of the viewed content to the terminal apparatus,” 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. Fears discusses a need exists in providing content to uses in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider (Fear, Par. [0001]). Incorporating prediction abilities to determine time periods to deliver content to a user would enable a delivery system as disclosed in Tazume to provide content to users in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider.
Regarding claim 9, Tazume discloses the information processing method according to claim 8. Tazume discloses wherein the content is video, animation, music, and/or an electronic book (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game).
Regarding claim 10, Tazume discloses the information processing method according to claim 8. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to further provide the terminal apparatus with a discount service limited during the delay time at a predetermined website that sells goods or services (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Regarding claim 12, Tazume discloses the information processing method according to claim 8. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide the terminal apparatus with an amount corresponding to a length of the delay time (Par. [0059], for the content of the type according to the delivery waiting time, for example, a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type may be used. FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type).
Regarding claim 13, Tazume discloses the information processing method according to claim 8. Tazume discloses wherein the incentive is a service point, mileage, video viewing time, a coupon, a lottery, and/or a charged item for a game (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Regarding claim 15, Tazume discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause an information processing apparatus having a processor to execute operations (Par. [0034], Each of the delivery machine 1, the information processing server 2, and the user terminal 3 can be connected to a communication network NW; Par. [0053]), the operations comprising,
when delivery of a package to a designated delivery point is not completed by a scheduled delivery time (Par. [0060], in a case where the recipient feels dissatisfied when viewing the map image presented by the delivery machine position presenting unit 231, such as a case where there is a plurality of delivery destinations and the delivery machine 1 is stopped at a delivery destination of another user for a long time),
providing a terminal apparatus owned by a customer who has ordered the package (Par. [0075], Here, the content providing unit 233 may determine whether or not the delivery status of the delivery machine 1 is delivery in progress in response to the provision request from the user terminal 3, and provide the content specified in step S2 to the user terminal 3 in a case where the delivery status is determined to be delivery in progress (that is, after waiting until the delivery status changes to delivery in progress)) with a content that is set to be viewable by the customer (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game),
during delay time from the scheduled delivery time to a delivery completion time at which the delivery of the package is completed (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress); and
automatically terminate the content to the terminal apparatus at the delivery completion time, at which the delivery of the package to the delivery point has been completed (Par. [0061], the content providing unit 233 may transmit, to the user terminal 3, control data (including data indicating an output stop time) for stopping the output in accordance with the time when the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination).
Tazume discloses determine and set a time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered (Par. [0070], calculates the delivery waiting time until the delivery machine 1 arrives at the delivery destination of the article on the basis of, for example, the scheduled arrival time at the delivery destination of the delivery machine 1 (step S1); Par. [0071], in a case of specifying content of a size, a type, or a reproduction time according to the delivery waiting time, the content specifying unit 232 determines whether or not the delivery waiting time is y minutes (for example, 30 minutes) or more) and deliver the content to the terminal apparatus at the time period (Par. [0060], during the delivery waiting time, when the delivery status of the article is delivery in progress, the content may be provided to the user terminal 3. That is, the content can be output when the delivery status is delivery in progress).
Tazume does not explicitly disclose using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered. Fear teaches using artificial intelligence (Par. [0080]) to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered (Par. [0055], The duration of the supplemental content sequence may be determined and compared to the time period to determine whether or not the duration exceeds the time period 550. If not, the selected supplemental content element may be added to the supplemental content sequence 552).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delivery system of Tazume to include the prediction abilities of Fear to teach “when the provided content is being viewed on the terminal apparatus, using artificial intelligence to predict a time period during which a highlight part of the viewed content is to be delivered, set the predicted time period as a time period during which the package is not delivered, and deliver the highlight part of the viewed content to the terminal apparatus,” 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. Fears discusses a need exists in providing content to uses in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider (Fear, Par. [0001]). Incorporating prediction abilities to determine time periods to deliver content to a user would enable a delivery system as disclosed in Tazume to provide content to users in a way that does not frustrate the users with respect to both the content provider and the resource provider.
Regarding claim 16, Tazume discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15. Tazume discloses wherein the content is video, animation, music, and/or an electronic book (Par. [0049], Examples of the content type (category) include electronic book, music, moving image (video), and game).
Regarding claim 17, Tazume discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to further provide the terminal apparatus with a discount service limited during the delay time at a predetermined website that sells goods or services (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Regarding claim 19, Tazume discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15. Tazume discloses wherein the controller is configured to provide the terminal apparatus with an amount corresponding to a length of the delay time (Par. [0059], for the content of the type according to the delivery waiting time, for example, a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type may be used. FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of a table that defines a correspondence relationship between the delivery waiting time and the content type).
Regarding claim 20, Tazume discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 15. Tazume discloses wherein the incentive is a service point, mileage, video viewing time, a coupon, a lottery, and/or a charged item for a game (Par. [0063], “If you receive the package within x minutes from the arrival of the package, a discount coupon that can be used at the time of purchase of viewed content will be granted.” is displayed as information indicating that the benefit is granted to the recipient in a case where the time from the arrival of the delivery machine 1 to the receipt of the article by the recipient is short).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tazume (US 2023/0196263 A1) in view of Fear (US 2025/0047910 A1) and Fredrich et al. (US 2018/0285809 A1), hereinafter Fredrich.
Regarding claim 7, Tazume discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tazume does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to, upon receiving, from the terminal apparatus, a postponement request to postpone a delivery time, notify the terminal apparatus of a scheduled delivery time set in response to the postponement request. Fredrich teaches wherein the controller is configured to, upon receiving, from the terminal apparatus, a postponement request to postpone a delivery time, notify the terminal apparatus of a scheduled delivery time set in response to the postponement request (Par. [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content system of Tazume to include the delivery postponement abilities of Fredrich 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.
Regarding claim 14, Tazume discloses the information processing method according to claim 8. Tazume does not teach further comprising, upon receiving, from the terminal apparatus, a postponement request to postpone a delivery time, notify the terminal apparatus of a scheduled delivery time set in response to the postponement request. Fredrich teaches wherein the controller is configured to, upon receiving, from the terminal apparatus, a postponement request to postpone a delivery time, notify the terminal apparatus of a scheduled delivery time set in response to the postponement request (Par. [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content system of Tazume to include the delivery postponement abilities of Fredrich 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.
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights