DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Application is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/26/2025.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 13 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and a machine, respectively) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 12, and 13, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . acquire delivery position information indicating a start point where a first mobile object is situated and a delivery destination point, map information, speed information indicating speed of the first mobile object and speed of a second mobile object different from the first mobile object in performance, and transshipment position information indicating a first transshipment position; (claims 1, 12, and 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers)
. . .calculate a delivery time as a direct delivery time based on the delivery position information, the map information and the speed of the first mobile object and calculate a transshipment delivery time, as a time for which delivery is performed by transshipping a parcel included in the first mobile object, based on the delivery position information, the map information, the speed of the first mobile object, the speed of the second mobile object, and the transshipment position information; (claims 1, 12, and 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform this calculation; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation)
. . . control when the direct delivery time is shorter than the transshipment delivery time so that the first mobile object delivers the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point and execute control when the transshipment delivery time is shorter than the direct delivery time so that the first mobile object moves to the first transshipment position, the parcel is transshipped to the second mobile object and then the second mobile object moves to the delivery destination point. (claims 1, 12, and 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could control a delivery in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity since the claims set forth the coordination of a delivery either directly or through a transshipment operation depending on which requires less time which recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this process in performing shipments for customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An information processing device comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
acquiring circuitry to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
calculating circuitry to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and controlling circuitry to execute. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A control method performed by an information processing device, the control method comprising: (claim 12; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An information processing device comprising: (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor to execute a program; (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of, (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 12, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-11, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the transshipment position information indicates a plurality of transshipment positions,
the calculating circuitry calculates a plurality of transshipment delivery times, as times in cases where the transshipment of the parcel is performed at a respective one of the plurality of transshipment positions, based on the delivery position information, the map information, the speed of the first mobile object, the speed of the second mobile object, and the transshipment position information, and
when a time shorter than the direct delivery time exists among the plurality of transshipment delivery times, the controlling circuitry executes control so that the transshipment of the parcel is performed at the transshipment position used when calculating a shortest transshipment delivery time among the plurality of transshipment delivery times.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform this calculation and control a shipment in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 3:
determining circuitry, wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires mobile object information including at least one item of information out of a road width that each of the first mobile object and the second mobile object can pass through, information indicating whether or not each of the first mobile object and the second mobile object is capable of traveling through a part having a slope, and information indicating whether or not each of the first mobile object and the second mobile object is capable of traveling on an unpaved road,
the map information includes information regarding at least one out of the road width, the slope and the unpaved,
the determining circuitry determines whether the first mobile object is capable of delivering the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point or not based on the delivery position information, the map information and the mobile object information, and
when the first mobile object is incapable of delivering the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point, the controlling circuitry executes control so that the transshipment delivery of the parcel is performed by the first mobile object and the second mobile object.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire this information, determine whether an object is capable of delivery a parcel, and control a delivery in response thereto; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers.
Claim 4:
wherein the transshipment position information indicates a plurality of transshipment positions,
when the first mobile object is incapable of delivering the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point, the calculating circuitry calculates a plurality of transshipment delivery times, as times in cases where the transshipment of the parcel is performed, based on the delivery position information, the map information, the speed of the first mobile object, the speed of the second mobile object, the mobile object information, and the transshipment position information, and
the controlling circuitry executes control so that the transshipment of the parcel is performed at the transshipment position used when calculating a shortest transshipment delivery time among the plurality of transshipment delivery times.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform this calculation and control a shipment in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 5:
wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires a payload of the parcel, and
when a part having a slope exists between the start point and the delivery destination point, the first mobile object is capable of traveling through a part having a slope, and the payload is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the determining circuitry determines that the first mobile object is incapable of delivering the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire a payload and determine whether the object is capable of carrying it on a given slope; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers.
Claim 6:
wherein when the transshipment delivery time is calculated and there occurs a waiting time of the first mobile object or the second mobile object, the calculating circuitry adds the waiting time to the transshipment delivery time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add a waiting time to a delivery time in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 7:
wherein when the parcel in the first mobile object is scheduled to be transshipped to the second mobile object at the first transshipment position and a parcel in a third mobile object is transshipped to the second mobile object at a second transshipment position, the acquiring circuitry acquires an arrival time when the third mobile object arrives at the second transshipment position,
the calculating circuitry calculates an arrival time when the first mobile object arrives at the second transshipment position based on a present position of the first mobile object as the start point, the second transshipment position, the map information, and the speed of the first mobile object, and
when the first mobile object is capable of arriving at the second transshipment position before the third mobile object arrives at the second transshipment position based on the acquired arrival time and the calculated arrival time, the controlling circuitry executes control so that the parcel in the first mobile object is transshipped to the second mobile object at the second transshipment position.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire an arrival time, calculate an arrival time, and control a delivery in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 8:
wherein when the first mobile object performs direct delivery and there exists a fourth mobile object performing direct delivery, the acquiring circuitry acquires position information on a second delivery destination as a delivery destination point of a parcel included in the fourth mobile object,
the calculating circuitry calculates a first distance as a distance between the first mobile object and a first delivery destination as the delivery destination point indicated by the delivery position information based on a present position of the first mobile object as the start point and the first delivery destination, calculates a second distance as a distance between the first mobile object and the second delivery destination based on the present position of the first mobile object and the position information on the second delivery destination, and when the second distance is shorter than the first distance, calculates an exchange position of the parcels by using the map information, and
the controlling circuitry executes control so that the first mobile object moves to the exchange position and the first mobile object after exchange of the parcels moves to the second delivery destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the above acquire, calculate, and control steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 9:
wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires congestion information as information indicating a correspondence relationship between each congestion area and a passage time as a time necessary for passing through the congestion area, and
when a part of a route used when calculating the direct delivery time or the transshipment delivery time is included in the congestion area, the calculating circuitry uses the passage time as a time corresponding to the part of the route.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire congestion information and use it to calculate a route travel time; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 10:
wherein the second mobile object is a bus,
when the transshipment of the parcel is performed, the acquiring circuitry acquires information indicating a bus stop where a user rides on or gets off the bus, and
the controlling circuitry determines the bus stop as the first transshipment position based on the information indicating the bus stop where the user rides on or gets off the bus.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the above acquire and determine steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the calculation is so broad as to encompass any mathematic formula or operation.
Claim 11:
wherein the calculating circuitry adds a transshipment work time to the transshipment delivery time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add transshipment work time to a delivery time; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating shipments for customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it recites addition.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-11, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademaker, William B. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20120173448; hereinafter "Rademaker") in view of Herminghaus et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180349809; hereinafter "Herminghaus")
As per claim 1, Rademaker teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
Rademaker teaches a system and method for delivering a package to a recipient via one or more custodians. (Rademaker: abstract)
With respect to the following limitation:
acquiring circuitry to acquire delivery position information indicating a start point where a first mobile object is situated and a delivery destination point, map information, speed information indicating speed of the first mobile object and speed of a second mobile object different from the first mobile object in performance, and transshipment position information indicating a first transshipment position;
Rademaker teaches that the system may receive current location information for custodians, an origin location of the package, a delivery destination, and map information as well as a handoff location where a package may be handed off to another custodian. (Rademaker: paragraph [0025, 29-30, 43, 46, 54-55, 59]) Rademaker, however, does not appear to explicitly teach consideration of the speed of the custodian vehicles in determining the arrival time.
Herminghaus, however, teaches, in the context of a system for delivering a package from a source location to a destination location by transferring the package from vehicle to vehicle, that average speeds of each vehicle along their respective transport path may be used to determine the arrival time of the package. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0011, 13-14, 22, 28, 44, 46, 51-52]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rademaker, or by Herminghaus. Considering the speed of each vehicle along its respective route in determining the total shipment time does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rademaker. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Herminghaus with the teachings of Rademaker since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Rademaker in view of Herminghaus further teaches:
calculating circuitry to calculate a delivery time as a direct delivery time based on the delivery position information, the map information and the speed of the first mobile object and calculate a transshipment delivery time, as a time for which delivery is performed by transshipping a parcel included in the first mobile object, based on the delivery position information, the map information, the speed of the first mobile object, the speed of the second mobile object, and the transshipment position information;
Rademaker teaches that, in the instance that it is determined that a delivery time may be reduced by adding a handoff to another custodian, the system may "boost" the delivery and determine that the package should be redirected to another custodian. (Rademaker: paragraph [0039]) In teaching that this is only performed because a delivery time may be reduced, Rademaker teaches refraining from doing so in instances that do not boost delivery time (where an additional custodian would not be faster) and therefore teaches that the package may be directly delivered by the first custodian in this case rather than passed on to another. Herminghaus, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of a system for delivering a package from a source location to a destination location by transferring the package from vehicle to vehicle, that average speeds of each vehicle along their respective transport path may be used to determine the arrival time of the package. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0011, 13-14, 22, 28, 44, 46, 51-52]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
and controlling circuitry to execute control when the direct delivery time is shorter than the transshipment delivery time so that the first mobile object delivers the parcel from the start point to the delivery destination point and execute control when the transshipment delivery time is shorter than the direct delivery time so that the first mobile object moves to the first transshipment position, the parcel is transshipped to the second mobile object and then the second mobile object moves to the delivery destination point.
Rademaker teaches that, in the instance that it is determined that a delivery time may be reduced by adding a handoff to another custodian, the system may "boost" the delivery and determine that the package should be redirected to another custodian. (Rademaker: paragraph [0039]) In teaching that this is only performed because a delivery time may be reduced, Rademaker teaches refraining from doing so in instances that do not boost delivery time (where an additional custodian would not be faster) and therefore teaches that the package may be directly delivered by the first custodian in this case rather than passed on to another. Herminghaus, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of a system for delivering a package from a source location to a destination location by transferring the package from vehicle to vehicle, that average speeds of each vehicle along their respective transport path may be used to determine the arrival time of the package. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0011, 13-14, 22, 28, 44, 46, 51-52]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
As per claim 2, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the transshipment position information indicates a plurality of transshipment positions,
Rademaker further teaches that a plurality of boost options may be presented to a user, any of which may be selected, wherein each boost option comprises a handoff and handoff position, and the fastest time may be selected. (Rademaker: paragraph [0072-73], Fig. 7)
the calculating circuitry calculates a plurality of transshipment delivery times, as times in cases where the transshipment of the parcel is performed at a respective one of the plurality of transshipment positions, based on the delivery position information, the map information, the speed of the first mobile object, the speed of the second mobile object, and the transshipment position information, and
Rademaker further teaches that a plurality of boost options may be presented to a user, any of which may be selected, wherein each boost option comprises a handoff and handoff position, and the fastest time may be selected. (Rademaker: paragraph [0072-73], Fig. 7) Rademaker teaches that, in the instance that it is determined that a delivery time may be reduced by adding a handoff to another custodian, the system may "boost" the delivery and determine that the package should be redirected to another custodian. (Rademaker: paragraph [0039]) In teaching that this is only performed because a delivery time may be reduced, Rademaker teaches refraining from doing so in instances that do not boost delivery time (where an additional custodian would not be faster) and therefore teaches that the package may be directly delivered by the first custodian in this case rather than passed on to another. Herminghaus, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of a system for delivering a package from a source location to a destination location by transferring the package from vehicle to vehicle, that average speeds of each vehicle along their respective transport path may be used to determine the arrival time of the package. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0011, 13-14, 22, 28, 44, 46, 51-52]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
when a time shorter than the direct delivery time exists among the plurality of transshipment delivery times, the controlling circuitry executes control so that the transshipment of the parcel is performed at the transshipment position used when calculating a shortest transshipment delivery time among the plurality of transshipment delivery times.
Rademaker further teaches that a plurality of boost options may be presented to a user, any of which may be selected, wherein each boost option comprises a handoff and handoff position, and the fastest time may be selected. (Rademaker: paragraph [0072-73], Fig. 7) Rademaker teaches that, in the instance that it is determined that a delivery time may be reduced by adding a handoff to another custodian, the system may "boost" the delivery and determine that the package should be redirected to another custodian. (Rademaker: paragraph [0039]) In teaching that this is only performed because a delivery time may be reduced, Rademaker teaches refraining from doing so in instances that do not boost delivery time (where an additional custodian would not be faster) and therefore teaches that the package may be directly delivered by the first custodian in this case rather than passed on to another. Herminghaus, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of a system for delivering a package from a source location to a destination location by transferring the package from vehicle to vehicle, that average speeds of each vehicle along their respective transport path may be used to determine the arrival time of the package. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0011, 13-14, 22, 28, 44, 46, 51-52]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
As per claim 6, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein when the transshipment delivery time is calculated and there occurs a waiting time of the first mobile object or the second mobile object, the calculating circuitry adds the waiting time to the transshipment delivery time.
Rademaker further teaches that the delivery time may take into account the amount of time that a courier has to stop and wait for a handoff to happen. (Rademaker: paragraph [0059])
As per claim 10, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the second mobile object is a bus,
Herminghaus further teaches that the intermediate transport mode may comprise a public transportation method such as a bus and therefore teaches that the transfer location may comprise a bus stop where a user gets on or off a bus. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0029, 32, 54-56]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
when the transshipment of the parcel is performed, the acquiring circuitry acquires information indicating a bus stop where a user rides on or gets off the bus, and
Herminghaus further teaches that the intermediate transport mode may comprise a public transportation method such as a bus and therefore teaches that the transfer location may comprise a bus stop where a user gets on or off a bus. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0029, 32, 54-56]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
the controlling circuitry determines the bus stop as the first transshipment position based on the information indicating the bus stop where the user rides on or gets off the bus.
Herminghaus further teaches that the intermediate transport mode may comprise a public transportation method such as a bus and therefore teaches that the transfer location may comprise a bus stop where a user gets on or off a bus. (Herminghaus: paragraphs [0029, 32, 54-56]) The motivation to combine Herminghaus persists.
As per claim 11, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the calculating circuitry adds a transshipment work time to the transshipment delivery time.
Rademaker further teaches that the delivery time may take into account the amount of time that a courier has to stop and wait for a handoff to happen. (Rademaker: paragraph [0059])
As per claim 12, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A control method performed by an information processing device, the control method comprising:
Rademaker teaches a system and method for delivering a package to a recipient via one or more custodians. (Rademaker: abstract)
As per claim 13, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
Rademaker teaches a system and method for delivering a package to a recipient via one or more custodians. (Rademaker: abstract)
a processor to execute a program;
Rademaker further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Rademaker: paragraphs [0077-84], Fig. 9)
and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of,
Rademaker further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Rademaker: paragraphs [0077-84], Fig. 9)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademaker in view of Herminghaus further in view of Kanata et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220164761; hereinafter "Kanata").
As per claim 9, Rademaker in view of Herminghaus teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires congestion information as information indicating a correspondence relationship between each congestion area and a passage time as a time necessary for passing through the congestion area, and
Kanata, however, teaches that local traffic information including congestion information may be taken into account when determining transshipment transit timings along routes. (Kanata: paragraph [0032-33]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rademaker in view of Herminghaus, or by Kanata. Adding traffic congestion time to the timings of Rademaker in view of Herminghaus does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rademaker in view of Herminghaus. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kanata with the teachings of Rademaker in view of Herminghaus, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Rademaker in view of Herminghaus further in view of Kanata further teaches:
when a part of a route used when calculating the direct delivery time or the transshipment delivery time is included in the congestion area, the calculating circuitry uses the passage time as a time corresponding to the part of the route.
Kanata, however, teaches that local traffic information including congestion information may be taken into account when determining transshipment transit timings along routes. (Kanata: paragraph [0032-33]) The motivation to combine Kanata persists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628