DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 19/160,548 filed on 08/28/2025.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. It has 171 words and 37 CFR 1.72 requires that the abstract may not exceed 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo – “degree)” which should recite as “degree”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “a candidate delivery means” and “a transportation means” in Claim 6, “a candidate delivery means” in Claim 7, and “a transportation means” in Claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination) and “a machine” (food transportation assistance system and food transportation system) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-12, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A food transportation assistance system comprising:
… that accepts shipping source information including first location information, which is location information of a plurality of shipping sources including plant factories, and information about food to be shipped by a shipping source, and shipping destination information including second location information, which is location information of a shipping destination, and information about food requested by the shipping destination;
… that finds a matching degree between the information about food which is included in the shipping source information and the information about food which is included in the shipping destination information, and transportation information when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination; and
… that outputs a candidate shipping source as candidate shipping information from among the plurality of shipping sources on the basis of the matching degree and the transportation information.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “an input device”, “an arithmetic device”, and “an output device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the shipping source includes a virtual shipping location; and wherein … outputs the virtual shipping location as a candidate installation location of a plant factory” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein … accepts a candidate for the virtual shipping location; and wherein … outputs the candidate installation location of a plant factory selected from among accepted candidates for the virtual shipping location” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein … outputs introduction efficiency when setting the plant factory as the candidate installation location” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein … further outputs a candidate delivery means that is a candidate for a transportation means when shipping the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination” in Claim 6, and by defining “wherein … computes the matching degree based on a shippable quantity of the food which can be shipped from the shipping source, and a cost required when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination” in Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2, 4, and 6 recite an additional element – “the output device”, Claim 3 recites additional elements – “the input device” and “the output device”, and Claim 8 recites an additional element – “the arithmetic device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 7, and 9-10 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the introduction efficiency is decided based on a cost required for food transportation” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the candidate delivery means is decided based on a distance between the shipping source and the shipping destination, and weight of the food to be transported” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein the candidate shipping information is sent to the shipping source in order to obtain an approval from the shipping source” in Claim 9, and by defining “wherein the transportation information is at least one of a transportation distance, a transportation means, and transportation time from the shipping source to the shipping destination” in Claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations:
A food transportation assistance method comprising, by …:
accepting shipping source information including first location information, which is location information of a plurality of shipping sources including plant factories, and information about food to be shipped by a shipping source, and shipping destination information including second location information, which is location information of a shipping destination, and information about food requested by the shipping destination;
finding a matching degree between the information about food which is included in the shipping source information and the information about food which is included in the shipping destination information, and transportation information when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination; and
outputting a candidate shipping source as candidate shipping information from among the plurality of shipping sources on the basis of the matching degree and the transportation information.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 11 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites additional elements – “execution of software recorded in a memory by a processor”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the following limitations:
A food transportation system comprising:
… that inputs shipping source information including first location information, which is location information of a plurality of shipping sources including plant factories, and information about food to be shipped by a shipping source;
… that inputs second location information, which is location information of a shipping destination, and information about food requested by the shipping destination; and
… that outputs candidate shipping information which is a candidate shipping source when shipping food from the shipping source to the shipping destination,
wherein … includes:
… that accepts the shipping source information and the shipping destination information;
… that finds a matching degree between the information about food which is included in the shipping source information and the information about food which is included in the shipping destination information, and transportation information when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination; and
… that outputs the candidate shipping source as the candidate shipping information from among the plurality of shipping sources on the basis of the matching degree and the transportation information.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 12 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 recites additional elements – “a first terminal device”, “a second terminal device”, “a food transportation assistance system”, “an input device”, “an arithmetic device”, and “an output device”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for transporting food from a shipping source including a plant factory to a shipping destination amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by KUNINOBU et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0261756 A1; hereinafter "KUNINOBU").
Regarding Claim 1, KUNINOBU teaches a food transportation assistance system comprising: an input device that accepts shipping source information including first location information, which is location information of a plurality of shipping sources including plant factories, and information about food to be shipped by a shipping source, and shipping destination information including second location information, which is location information of a shipping destination, and information about food requested by the shipping destination (See “The input data acquirer 101 acquires data (input data) required in operations performed by the embodiment from internal storage or an external device. The input data includes a producer list (first list), a buyer list (second list), a transport medium list, and a specific transaction price list.” in Paragraph [0025], “The producer list includes sell conditions, which are the conditions under which a producer (first dealer) sells the product, for each producer. Specifically, the producer list includes the producer, the product sell location (a place specified by the producer), a period during which the product can be sold (sell availability period), at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product sell price. Note that selling the product is also referred to as marketing the product.” in Paragraph [0026], and “The buyer list contains conditions under which the buyer (second dealer) buys the product (buy conditions). Specifically, the buyer list includes the buyer, the product buy location (a place specified by the buyer), a period during which the product can be bought, at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product buy price. Note that buying the product is also referred to as purchasing the product.” in Paragraph [0032]); an arithmetic device that finds a matching degree between the information about food which is included in the shipping source information and the information about food which is included in the shipping destination information, and transportation information when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination (See “On the basis of the information about the transport medium “k” selected by the transport medium selector 103, the matching candidate generator 104 generates combinations of one sell condition of a producer and one buy condition of a buyer as matching candidates (pairs).” in Paragraph [0051] and “The matching candidate generator 104 corresponds to one example of a generator that generates a matching candidate including a sell condition under which a producer sells the product and a buy condition under which a buyer buys the product for which the sell condition is matched, on the basis of information about a transport medium (first transport medium) that transports the product from the producer to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0052]); and
an output device that outputs a candidate shipping source as candidate shipping information from among the plurality of shipping sources on the basis of the matching degree and the transportation information (See “The result output device 107 outputs the matching candidates assigned to the transport medium “k” and the transport schedule of the transport medium “k” as the result of the processing by the scheduler 105. For example, the result output device 107 displays the matching candidates and the transport schedule on the screen of a display device. The result output device 107 may also transmit the matching candidates and the transport schedule to an external device through wired or wireless communication.” in Paragraph [0132]).
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to system Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 11 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 11 is considered anticipated (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the shipping source includes a virtual shipping location; and wherein the output device outputs the virtual shipping location as a candidate installation location of a plant factory (See “For example, in the case where a transport request “r” consumes only the resource “s.sub.1”, a virtual producer “p.sub.∞” is supposed, and an edge from the source vertex to the “p.sub.∞” vertex with no flow value upper limit is created. A flow value upper limit of 1 is set on the edge from the “p.sub.∞” vertex to the “s.sub.1” vertex. The flow value upper limit of 1 is set on the edges between a producer vertex and a buyer vertex to keep the maximum flow value from going to infinity (such that each transport request is scheduled only once), even in cases where there are transport requests that do not consume usable resources.” in Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding Claim 3, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the input device accepts a candidate for the virtual shipping location; and wherein the output device outputs the candidate installation location of a plant factory selected from among accepted candidates for the virtual shipping location (See “For example, in the case where a transport request “r” consumes only the resource “s.sub.1”, a virtual producer “p.sub.∞” is supposed, and an edge from the source vertex to the “p.sub.∞” vertex with no flow value upper limit is created. A flow value upper limit of 1 is set on the edge from the “p.sub.∞” vertex to the “s.sub.1” vertex. The flow value upper limit of 1 is set on the edges between a producer vertex and a buyer vertex to keep the maximum flow value from going to infinity (such that each transport request is scheduled only once), even in cases where there are transport requests that do not consume usable resources.” in Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding Claim 4, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 2, and 3 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the output device outputs introduction efficiency when setting the plant factory as the candidate installation location (See “The present embodiment generates the matching candidates and the transport schedule to maximize or optimize profit for the owner of the business. Here, the profit from the business is calculated by subtracting costs such as the cost of purchasing apples from the producer, the waste cost corresponding to the waste rate, the transport expenses of the truck, and the like from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer. However, the profit may also be defined in other ways. For example, the profit may also be calculated by additionally subtracting the labor costs of an operator who operates the transport medium from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0047] and “The waste rate indicates how many apples are bruised during transport and are no longer suitable for sale. For example, a waste rate of 1 [%/day] indicates that 1% of the apples become unsuitable for sale per day. As a specific example, in the case of a waste rate of 1 [%/day], if 100 kg of apples are transported over three days, 100 kg×0.01×3=3 kg of the apples will be unsuitable for sale. In other words, the buyer is able to acquire 97 kg of apples. The 3 kg of apples being unsuitable for sale means that the sales (i.e., a sales amount) by the business will be reduced by an amount of money corresponding to 3 kg of apples.” in Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the introduction efficiency is decided based on a cost required for food transportation (See “The present embodiment generates the matching candidates and the transport schedule to maximize or optimize profit for the owner of the business. Here, the profit from the business is calculated by subtracting costs such as the cost of purchasing apples from the producer, the waste cost corresponding to the waste rate, the transport expenses of the truck, and the like from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer. However, the profit may also be defined in other ways. For example, the profit may also be calculated by additionally subtracting the labor costs of an operator who operates the transport medium from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0047] and “The waste rate indicates how many apples are bruised during transport and are no longer suitable for sale. For example, a waste rate of 1 [%/day] indicates that 1% of the apples become unsuitable for sale per day. As a specific example, in the case of a waste rate of 1 [%/day], if 100 kg of apples are transported over three days, 100 kg×0.01×3=3 kg of the apples will be unsuitable for sale. In other words, the buyer is able to acquire 97 kg of apples. The 3 kg of apples being unsuitable for sale means that the sales (i.e., a sales amount) by the business will be reduced by an amount of money corresponding to 3 kg of apples.” in Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the output device further outputs a candidate delivery means that is a candidate for a transportation means when shipping the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination (See “The candidate selector 104A selects at least one transport request as a transport request candidate on the basis of information about the transport medium that transports the product and a resource-related constraint. One example of the resource-related constraint is the number of usable resources. In the case where there are multiple types of resources, a constraint may exist for each type. The information about the resource-related constraint and the information about the transport medium may be acquired by the input data acquirer 101. The candidate selector 104A may also select the transport request candidate by creating the maximum matching calculation graph in FIG. 6, for example. For example, the candidate selector 104A may treat the first resource as the producer of the product and the second resource as the buyer of the product to create the maximum matching calculation graph in FIG. 6.” in Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding Claim 7, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 6 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the candidate delivery means is decided based on a distance between the shipping source and the shipping destination, and weight of the food to be transported (See “The candidate selector 104A selects at least one transport request as a transport request candidate on the basis of information about the transport medium that transports the product and a resource-related constraint. One example of the resource-related constraint is the number of usable resources. In the case where there are multiple types of resources, a constraint may exist for each type. The information about the resource-related constraint and the information about the transport medium may be acquired by the input data acquirer 101. The candidate selector 104A may also select the transport request candidate by creating the maximum matching calculation graph in FIG. 6, for example. For example, the candidate selector 104A may treat the first resource as the producer of the product and the second resource as the buyer of the product to create the maximum matching calculation graph in FIG. 6.” in Paragraph [0150] and “The quantity for sale by the producer is not more than the load capacity of the transport medium “k”.” in Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 8, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the arithmetic device computes the matching degree based on a shippable quantity of the food which can be shipped from the shipping source, and a cost required when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination (See “In the present embodiment, when the producer list, the buyer list, the transport medium list, and the specific transaction price list are given as inputs, the sell conditions of the producers are combined with the buy conditions of the buyers who match the sell conditions to generate matching information (hereinafter referred to as matching candidates). In the case where a buy condition matching a sell condition does not exist, the generated matching information may be 0 in some cases. Some or all of the matching candidates are assigned to a transport medium by associating the matching candidates with the transport medium to generate a transport schedule for the transport medium. The present embodiment generates the matching candidates and the transport schedule to maximize or optimize profit for the owner of the business. Here, the profit from the business is calculated by subtracting costs such as the cost of purchasing apples from the producer, the waste cost corresponding to the waste rate, the transport expenses of the truck, and the like from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer. However, the profit may also be defined in other ways. For example, the profit may also be calculated by additionally subtracting the labor costs of an operator who operates the transport medium from the sales of apples (i.e., a sales amount of apples) to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0047], “On the basis of the information about the transport medium “k” selected by the transport medium selector 103, the matching candidate generator 104 generates combinations of one sell condition of a producer and one buy condition of a buyer as matching candidates (pairs).” in Paragraph [0051], and “The matching candidate generator 104 corresponds to one example of a generator that generates a matching candidate including a sell condition under which a producer sells the product and a buy condition under which a buyer buys the product for which the sell condition is matched, on the basis of information about a transport medium (first transport medium) that transports the product from the producer to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the candidate shipping information is sent to the shipping source in order to obtain an approval from the shipping source (See “Note that marketing the transported apples to the buyer “s2” means at least handing over the apples to the buyer or a representative, or simply placing the apples in a location specified by the buyer. The sales contract itself may be agreed upon before transport, when handing the apples over to the buyer, or at some other timing. Similarly, purchasing the apples from the producer means at least receiving the apples from the producer or a representative, or simply acquiring the apples from a location specified by the producer. The sales contract itself may be agreed upon before transport, when receiving the apples, or at some other timing.” in Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding Claim 10, KUNINOBU teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. KUNINOBU also teaches wherein the transportation information is at least one of a transportation distance, a transportation means, and transportation time from the shipping source to the shipping destination (See “The transport medium that transports the product may be any medium capable of transporting a product on land, in the air, on water, underwater, or the like, such as a truck, a ship, an airplane, a drone, a train, an automobile, or a robot. The transport medium to be used may be determined according to the type or quantity of the product to be transported. As an example, the present embodiment illustrates the case where the first dealer is an apple grower, the product is apples, and the transport medium is a truck.” in Paragraph [0022] and “FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the transport medium list. The transport medium list contains two entries. Specifically, the transport medium list includes information related to two trucks for transporting apples. A truck ID (“T1”, “T2”) is an identifier for each truck.” in Paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 12, KUNINOBU teaches a food transportation system comprising: a first terminal device that inputs shipping source information including first location information, which is location information of a plurality of shipping sources including plant factories, and information about food to be shipped by a shipping source; a second terminal device that inputs second location information, which is location information of a shipping destination, and information about food requested by the shipping destination (See “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a transport plan apparatus 100 as an information processing apparatus according to the embodiment. The transport plan apparatus 100 is provided with an input data acquirer 101, …” in Paragraph [0024], “The input data acquirer 101 acquires data (input data) required in operations performed by the embodiment from internal storage or an external device. The input data includes a producer list (first list), a buyer list (second list), a transport medium list, and a specific transaction price list. Otherwise, the input data may also include parameters required by the operation (for example, the execution of a function) in each block of the transport plan apparatus 100.” in Paragraph [0025], “The producer list includes sell conditions, which are the conditions under which a producer (first dealer) sells the product, for each producer. Specifically, the producer list includes the producer, the product sell location (a place specified by the producer), a period during which the product can be sold (sell availability period), at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product sell price. Note that selling the product is also referred to as marketing the product.” in Paragraph [0026], and “The buyer list contains conditions under which the buyer (second dealer) buys the product (buy conditions). Specifically, the buyer list includes the buyer, the product buy location (a place specified by the buyer), a period during which the product can be bought, at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product buy price. Note that buying the product is also referred to as purchasing the product.” in Paragraph [0032]); and a food transportation assistance system that outputs candidate shipping information which is a candidate shipping source when shipping food from the shipping source to the shipping destination, wherein the food transportation assistance system includes: an input device that accepts the shipping source information and the shipping destination information (See “The input data acquirer 101 acquires data (input data) required in operations performed by the embodiment from internal storage or an external device. The input data includes a producer list (first list), a buyer list (second list), a transport medium list, and a specific transaction price list.” in Paragraph [0025], “The producer list includes sell conditions, which are the conditions under which a producer (first dealer) sells the product, for each producer. Specifically, the producer list includes the producer, the product sell location (a place specified by the producer), a period during which the product can be sold (sell availability period), at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product sell price. Note that selling the product is also referred to as marketing the product.” in Paragraph [0026], and “The buyer list contains conditions under which the buyer (second dealer) buys the product (buy conditions). Specifically, the buyer list includes the buyer, the product buy location (a place specified by the buyer), a period during which the product can be bought, at least one of the quality and the quantity of the product, and the product buy price. Note that buying the product is also referred to as purchasing the product.” in Paragraph [0032]); an arithmetic device that finds a matching degree between the information about food which is included in the shipping source information and the information about food which is included in the shipping destination information, and transportation information when transporting the food from the shipping source to the shipping destination (See “On the basis of the information about the transport medium “k” selected by the transport medium selector 103, the matching candidate generator 104 generates combinations of one sell condition of a producer and one buy condition of a buyer as matching candidates (pairs).” in Paragraph [0051] and “The matching candidate generator 104 corresponds to one example of a generator that generates a matching candidate including a sell condition under which a producer sells the product and a buy condition under which a buyer buys the product for which the sell condition is matched, on the basis of information about a transport medium (first transport medium) that transports the product from the producer to the buyer.” in Paragraph [0052]); and an output device that outputs the candidate shipping source as the candidate shipping information from among the plurality of shipping sources on the basis of the matching degree and the transportation information (See “The result output device 107 outputs the matching candidates assigned to the transport medium “k” and the transport schedule of the transport medium “k” as the result of the processing by the scheduler 105. For example, the result output device 107 displays the matching candidates and the transport schedule on the screen of a display device. The result output device 107 may also transmit the matching candidates and the transport schedule to an external device through wired or wireless communication.” in Paragraph [0132]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights