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 action is in reply to the application 16/866,448 filed on 5/11/2020. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-15 and 17-20 were amended, and claims 5 and 16 were cancelled in the reply filed on 11/10/2021. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15 and 17-20 were amended in the reply filed on 3/21/2022. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11 were amended and Claims 21 and 22 were newly added in the reply filed 8/15/2022. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-22 were amended, claim 3 was cancelled, and claim 23 was newly added in the reply filed 2/6/2023. Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13-15 and 17-20 were amended in the reply filed 11/14/2023. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 20-23 have been amended in the reply filed 7/26/2024. Claims 1, 4, 7, 13, and 21 were amended in the reply filed 12/12/2024. Claim 7 was amended in the reply filed 4/22/2025. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, and 22 were amended in the reply filed 11/28/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, and 17-23 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 13 regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, and 17-23: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the independent claims are patent eligible under Step 2A Prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that implementing a same day route for additional packages without requiring additional transportation resources is an improvement to the technical field of allocating resources for package transportation. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not recite “components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data.” The claimed invention merely collects delivery route and location data, which is not analogous to the patent eligible example described in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) or Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The description of generated “new data” is referring to novel types of collected data, not broadly describing any newly collected data.
Applicant further argues that generating “digital output” does not preclude patent eligibility under Diehr. Examiner agrees. However, merely generating “digital output” does not, in and of itself, result in patent eligibility. In other words, there are many patent eligible applications which include a digital output, and also many patent ineligible applications which also include a digital output. Applicant’s claims are not analogous to those patent eligible claims which include a digital output.
Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in the technical field of resource allocation for package transportation under Ex Parte Desjardins Et. Al. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The instant claims are not analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins in part because they are not directed to a machine learning model. This was critical to the determination in Ex Parte Desjardins.
Applicant further argues that the claims are patent eligible under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determining a solution to allow additional packages to be transported to their destinations without requiring additional transportation resources is merely an abstract solution to an abstract problem. This broad concept does not involve additional elements which may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, with regard to Step 2B, this concept does not amount to ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims are patent eligible for the same reasons described above. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner further argues that the “geographic position” data and “geolocation data” associated with the claimed “mobile computing devices” in claims 9, 10, and 17 are not additional elements. The claim limitations “geographic position” data and “geolocation data” are merely part of the recited abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 18 regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, and 17-23: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the cited prior art does not teach the claims as a whole. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that Engle does not teach the amended claim language. Applicant argues that, regarding the “route creation” capabilities of Engle, it is completely devoid of any express or implied teaching that the “route” selected by the first autonomous vehicle to arrive at an intercept point with the second autonomous vehicle is a “previously fixed scheduled route.” However, Examiner does not rely on any of the cited references on their own in order to teach the claim limitations as a whole. It is instead the combination of Ohtani (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051021) in view of Bhatia (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0193368) in view of Gishen (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0081581) in view of Engle (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057438) which teach the claims as a whole. Examiner maintains that this combination of prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the motivations provided in the rejections below. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). "[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed …." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that Ohtani does not teach setting a dynamic stop location on a previously fixed scheduled travel route. For the same reasons described above, Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner maintains that the combination of Ohtani and Engle teaches that package delivery routes may be initially set (i.e., previously fixed scheduled travel route) and then updated in order to accommodate delivering additional packages along the routes. Specifically, Ohtani teaches dynamically adjusting the original delivery routes (i.e., previously fixed scheduled travel route) in order to make this accommodation, while its combination with Engle teaches that such an accommodation may involve delivery vehicles meeting at a location where each of their routes intersect (i.e., directly along both the existing routes of the first and second vehicles).
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 1-2, 4, 6-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method of A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location for a first package, using first package data acquired at a first time that is during a day at an origin location by a first mobile computing device associated with a delivery representative, the method comprising: obtaining, over a communications network, previously fixed scheduled route data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data is delivery route data for one or more other packages being delivered by the delivery representative after the first time and during the day and along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative and including previously scheduled stops, and wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data further includes other delivery route data for additional packages being delivered by one or more preexisting other delivery representatives at times after the first time and during the day; obtaining, over the communications network from the first mobile computing device, first package data including origin location data and first time data; obtaining, over the communications network from a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, current location data and current time data for the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, wherein each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives; analyzing, by one or more hardware processors, the origin location data and the first time data, and further analyzing the previously fixed scheduled route data using a graph search algorithm to determine routing information for the first package, wherein the routing information includes at least the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and a delivery location, wherein the previously scheduled stops of the delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; automatically determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative based on the routing information, the second mobile computing device being one of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices such that the second preexisting delivery representative is at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives; wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative, and the dynamic stop location and the delivery location each correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative further being for at least one of the additional packages being delivered after the first time and during the day; sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device; and sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location and the delivery location to the second mobile computing device wherein the analyzing, the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the delivery location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the first time. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
The limitations A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location for a first package, using first package data acquired at a first time that is during a day at an origin location … the method comprising: obtaining ... previously fixed scheduled route data from a plurality of data sources, wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data is delivery route data for one or more other packages being delivered by the delivery representative after the first time and during the day and along previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative and including previously scheduled stops, and wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data further includes other delivery route data for additional packages being delivered by to one or more preexisting other delivery representatives at times after the first time and during the day; obtaining ... first package data including origin location data and first time data; obtaining … current location data and current time data …; analyzing ... the origin location data and the first time data and further analyzing the previously fixed scheduled route data ... to determine routing information for the first package, wherein the routing information includes at least the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and a delivery location, wherein the previously scheduled stops of the delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; automatically determining ... wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative, and the dynamic stop location and the delivery location each correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative further being for at least one of the additional packages being delivered after the first time and during the day; sending … the dynamic stop location … and sending … the dynamic stop location and the delivery location … wherein the analyzing, the sending the dynamic stop location … and the sending the dynamic stop location and the delivery location … occur at real time or near real time with respect to the first time, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers the concepts related to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions (e.g., business relations), fundamental economic practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of a first mobile computing device, a communications network, one or more hardware processors, a graph search algorithm, a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, and a second mobile computing device are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of a first mobile computing device, a communications network, one or more hardware processors, a graph search algorithm, a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, and a second mobile computing device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional elements of a first mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]), a communications network (described in para. [0045]), one or more hardware processors (described in para. [0039]), a graph search algorithm (described in para. [0045]), a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices (described in para. [0046]), and a second mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]) are all recited at a high level of generality in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 23 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 23 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: obtaining, over a communications network at a first time during a day, delivery information for a product purchased from a retailer, wherein the delivery information comprises instructions for a delivery of the product within a specific geographical area and wherein the delivery information further comprises a pickup time during the day after the first time during the day and an origin location, wherein the pickup time corresponds to an expected time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location; preparing, by a hardware processor, packing instructions for a package containing the product; automatically determining that the package can be delivered during the day that the package is received from the retailer using a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives based on at least one of: the pickup time, a location of each of a plurality of mobile computing devices within a service zone, weather data, traffic data, day of the week information associated with the day, or a size of the package, wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices within the service zone is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; generating, by the hardware processor, a scheduled pickup time and a dynamic stop time and the dynamic stop location for the package, the scheduled pickup time corresponding to a scheduled time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location, the scheduled pickup time being during the day on or after the pickup time during the day and the dynamic stop time being during the day, the generating based on the automatically determining, the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, and the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a second preexisting delivery representative, wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other first preexisting package after the first time during the day, and wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other second preexisting package after the first time during the day, wherein each of the first preexisting delivery representative and the second preexisting delivery representative are one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives, and wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to a first mobile computing device associated with the first preexisting delivery representative; and sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network, the dynamic stop location and a delivery location to a second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative, wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative, wherein the dynamic stop location and the delivery location correspond to locations along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative; wherein the automatically determining, the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the first time. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
The limitations A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: obtaining ... at a first time during a day, delivery information for a product purchased from a retailer, wherein the delivery information comprises instructions for a delivery of the product within a specific geographical area, and wherein the delivery information further comprises a pickup time during the day after the first time during the day and an origin location, wherein the pickup time corresponds to an expected time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location; preparing ... packing instructions for a package containing the product; automatically determining that the package can be delivered during the day that the package is received from the retailer using a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives based on at least one of: the pickup time, a location of each of a plurality of mobile computing devices within a service zone, weather data, traffic data, day of the week information associated with the day, or a size of the package, wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices within the service zone is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; generating ... a scheduled pickup time and a dynamic stop time and the dynamic stop location for the package, the scheduled pickup time corresponding to a scheduled time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location, the scheduled pickup time being during the day on or after the pickup time during the day and the dynamic stop time being during the day, the generating based on the automatically determining the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, and the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a second preexisting delivery representative, wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other first preexisting package after the first time during the day, and wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other first preexisting package after the first time during the day, and wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other second preexisting package after the first time during the day, wherein each of the first preexisting delivery representative and the second preexisting delivery representative are one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives, and wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; sending ... the dynamic stop location …; and sending ... the dynamic stop location and a delivery location … wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative, wherein the dynamic stop location and the delivery location correspond to locations along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative; wherein the automatically determining, the sending the dynamic stop location … and the sending the dynamic stop location … occurs at real time or near real time with respect to the first time, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers the concepts related to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)), That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of a communications network, one or more hardware processors, a first mobile computing device, and a second mobile computing device are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of a communications network, one or more hardware processors, a first mobile computing device, and a second mobile computing device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional elements a communications network (described in para. [0045]), one or more hardware processors (described in para. [0039]), a first mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]), and a second mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]) are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-12 and 21 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 9-12 and 21 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: obtaining, over a communications network from a customer computer device an initial time and during a day, information for a plurality of packages to be delivered; determining, by a hardware processor, whether a volume of the plurality of packages exceeds a predetermined volume threshold; in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is exceeded, providing to the customer computer device over the communications network, a first drop-off location, wherein the first drop off location corresponds to a high volume drop-off location; in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is not exceeded, providing, over the communications network, a pickup location to a first mobile computing device associated with a first preexisting delivery representative for pickup at a time after the initial time during the day at an origin location, wherein the first preexisting delivery representative is one of a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; automatically determining, by the hardware processor, whether a first package of the plurality of packages can be delivered on the day; in response to automatically determining that the first package cannot be delivered on the day, providing, over the communications network to the first mobile computing device, a second drop- off location, wherein the second drop-off location corresponds to a next day delivery location for delivery of the first package on the next day; wherein the automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day comprises determining, by the hardware processor, whether a destination for the first package is on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives, wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route is for delivery of one or more other preexisting packages by the one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives at times during the day after the initial time; automatically generating the dynamic stop location for the first package based on the destination, location information for each of a plurality of mobile computing devices, and the previously fixed scheduled travel route including previously scheduled stops, wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; sending the dynamic stop location over the communications network to the first mobile computing device, wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least one of the one or more preexisting packages at a first time during the day after the initial time, , and wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; automatically determining, based on the dynamic stop location, the previously fixed scheduled travel route, and the destination, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative; and sending the dynamic stop location and the destination to the second mobile computing device, wherein the destination and the dynamic stop location correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least another of the one or more preexisting packages at a second time during the day after the initial time, wherein the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the destination to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the initial time. Therefore, claim 13 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
The limitations A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: obtaining … at an initial time and during a day, information for a plurality of packages to be delivered; determining ... whether a volume of the plurality of packages exceeds a predetermined volume threshold; in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is exceeded, providing … a first drop-off location, wherein the first drop off location corresponds to a high volume drop-off location; in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is not exceeded, providing ... a pickup location ... for pickup at a time after the initial time during the day at an origin location, wherein the first preexisting delivery representative is one of a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; automatically determining ... whether a first package of the plurality of packages can be delivered on the day; in response to automatically determining that the first package cannot be delivered on the day, providing ... a second drop-off location, wherein the second drop-off location corresponds to a next day delivery location for delivery of the first package on the next day; wherein the automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day, comprises determining ... whether a destination for the first package is on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives, wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route is for delivery of one or more other preexisting packages by the one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives at times during the day after the initial time; automatically generating the dynamic stop location for the first package based on the destination, location information for each of a plurality of mobile computing devices, and the previously fixed scheduled travel route including previously scheduled stops, wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; sending the dynamic stop location … wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least one of the one or more preexisting packages at a first time during the day after the initial time, and wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; automatically determining, based on the dynamic stop location, the previously fixed scheduled travel route, and the destination, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative; and sending the dynamic stop location and the destination … wherein the destination and the dynamic stop location correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least another of the one or more preexisting packages at a second time during the day after the initial time, wherein the sending the dynamic stop location … and the sending the dynamic stop location and the destination … occur at real time or near real time with respect to the initial time, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers the concepts related to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practices, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic principles, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of a communications network, one or more hardware processors, a customer computer device, a first mobile computing device, and a second mobile computing device are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional elements a communications network (described in para. [0045]), a customer computer device (described in para. [0011]), a hardware processor (described in para. [0039]), a first mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]), and a second mobile computing device (described in para. [0046]) are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-15, 17-20, and 22 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 14-15, 17-20, and 22 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims -1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051021) in view of Bhatia (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0193368) in view of Gishen (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0081581) in view of Engle (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057438).
Regarding claim 1, Ohtani, as shown, discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location for a first package, using first package data acquired at a first time that is during a day at an origin location by a first mobile computing device associated with a delivery representative, the method comprising: (Examiner’s Note: based on the specification, there is no clear, narrow definition for “dynamic stop location.” Spec. para. [0029] describes a route and stops being communicated dynamically and/or in real time. Spec. paras. [0032-0034] describe dynamic delivery scheduling which may be based on optimizing travel routes for the day, including using or avoiding major arteries in the delivery area and which brick and mortar stores have packages for that day. Spec. para. [0048] teaches service zones including one or more dynamic bus stops, which are determined by the scheduling system. As such, Examiner has interpreted the term “dynamic stop location” to indicate a stop location assigned to a courier after the package has already begun a leg of its transit.) [See [Abstract] Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle with a package with a second vehicle. Ohtani further teaches, after a package is already in transit, arranging the first and second vehicle to meet at a location (i.e., generating a dynamic stop location for a first package) in order for the package to be reloaded from the first vehicle into the second vehicle for delivery. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); teaches receiving a third user requesting delivery of a package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); further teaches the delivery request including a source location, a delivery destination, and a delivery period of the package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S03); further teaches matching the delivery request with a first vehicle based on its ability to deliver the package based on the delivery request information. Ohtani [0044]; teaches a seller loading the package into the first delivery vehicle at a source location (i.e., at an origin location) in order for the first user to deliver it to its destination. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S04); further teaches transmitting the matching information (i.e., first package data acquired at a first time that is during a day at an origin location) to a first user terminal (i.e., a first mobile computing device associated with a delivery representative).]
obtaining, over a communications network, previously fixed scheduled route data from a plurality of data sources [See [0060] Ohtani teaches a vehicle information acquisition unit 304 acquiring information about the traveling of a first and second vehicle. Ohtani [0060] further teaches that this information includes current positions of the vehicles, travel destinations, and traveling periods. Ohtani [0061]; [0063] teaches a route generation unit 307 generating and transmitting a scheduled travel route for a first vehicle and a second vehicle (i.e., obtaining, over a communications network, previously fixed scheduled route data). Ohtani [0048] teaches that the server may be a plurality of computers operating in coordination (i.e., a plurality of data sources).]
wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data is delivery route data for one or more other packages being delivered by the delivery representative after the first time and during the day and along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative and including previously scheduled stops [See [0063] Ohtani teaches, after matching a package to a first vehicle (i.e., after the first time and during the day), a route generation unit 307 generating a travel route of a first vehicle (i.e., wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data) carrying the package (i.e., for one or more other packages being delivered by the delivery representative) that passes through the current position of the first vehicle, the source location of the package, the delivery destination of the package, and the travel destination of the first vehicle (i.e., along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative and including previously scheduled stops). [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., during the day).]
wherein the previously fixed scheduled route data further includes other delivery route data for additional packages being delivered by one or more preexisting other delivery representatives at times after the first time and during the day; [See [0063] Ohtani teaches a route generation unit 307 generating a delivery travel route for a second vehicle as well. Ohtani [0028]; [0030]; (Fig. 11) further teaches that the second vehicle has a previously fixed scheduled travel route in order to deliver packages matched to it (i.e., other delivery route data for additional packages being delivered by one or more preexisting other delivery representatives). Specifically, [0086] teaches the dotted line in (Fig. 11) indicates the scheduled travel route of the second vehicle after initial scheduled delivery routes for both the first and second vehicle are established (i.e., at times after the first time and during the day) and before the second matching process (i.e., dynamic stop determination step) is performed. [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., during the day).]
obtaining, over the communications network from the first mobile computing device, first package data … [See [0091] Ohtani teaches a first user terminal sending the server a re-delivery request for the package.]
obtaining, over the communications network from a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, current location data and current time data for the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices [See [0091]; (Fig. 12, element S13); Ohtani teaches the server performing a second matching process in which the server searches for and matches a second vehicle which is able to receive the package from the first vehicle and to deliver the package to the delivery destination. Ohtani (Fig. 5) further teaches that the second vehicle is selected from a plurality of vehicles. Ohtani [0091] further teaches that this second matching process is based on the vehicle information stored in the vehicle information database 313. Ohtani [0028]; [0060]; teaches that the vehicle information of the second vehicle includes a current position (i.e., current location data) at the current time as well as a current destination and traveling period (i.e., current time data). Ohtani [0040] further teaches that there are the same number of users, vehicles, and terminals. In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal. Ohtani [0060] further teaches obtaining vehicle information from the user terminals associated with each vehicle, respectively (i.e., obtaining, over the communications network from a plurality of other associated mobile computing devices, current location data and current time data for the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices).]]
wherein each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives; [See [0040] Ohtani teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., one of the one or more preexisting delivery representatives), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal (i.e., wherein each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives).]
analyzing, by one or more hardware processors, the origin location data and the first time data [See Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); teaches receiving a third user requesting delivery of a package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); further teaches the delivery request including a source location, a delivery destination, and a delivery period of the package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S03); further teaches matching the delivery request with a first vehicle based on its ability to deliver the package based on the delivery request information including the source location (i.e., the origin location), the delivery destination, and the delivery period of the package (i.e., the first time data). Ohtani [0044]; teaches a seller loading the package into the first delivery vehicle at a source location (i.e., the origin location) in order for the first user to deliver it to its destination.]
and further analyzing the previously fixed scheduled route data … to determine routing information for the first package [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a second vehicle in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location (i.e., further analyzing the previously fixed scheduled route data … to determine routing information for the first package). A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle.]
wherein the routing information includes at least the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and a delivery location [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the adjusted route of both the first and the second vehicle include their own source locations (i.e., origin locations), hand-over location (i.e., the dynamic stop location), and travel destinations (i.e., a delivery location). This is further supported by Fig. 11 which illustrates a route of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprising stops along each route. In this illustration the routes of each vehicle intersect at stop D40 which is representative of the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location).]
wherein the previously scheduled stops of the delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. The hand-over location is not part of the route for the first vehicle or the second vehicle when those routes are originally created. It is only after the second matching step S13 (described in para [0091]; (Fig. 12, element S13)) is performed that each route is adjusted to include the hand-over location.]
automatically determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative based on the routing information [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles (i.e., based on the routing information) in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location (i.e., automatically determining, by the one or more hardware processors, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative). A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. The hand-over location is not part of the route for the first vehicle or the second vehicle when those routes are originally created. It is only after the second matching step S13 (described in para [0091]; (Fig. 12, element S13)) is performed that each route is adjusted to include the hand-over location.]
the second mobile computing device being one of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices such that the second preexisting delivery representative is at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives; [See [0040] Ohtani teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., such that the second preexisting delivery representative is at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., the second mobile computing device being one of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal (i.e., the second mobile computing device being one of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices such that the second preexisting delivery representative is at least one of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives).]
wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative [See (Fig. 11, elements D11, D12, D40); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches that the hand-over location D40 is a location that is already along the existing travel route of the first vehicle (i.e., wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative). This is depicted in Fig. 11. The travel route of the first vehicle is not changed at all. Instead, the travel route of the second vehicle is modified in order to accommodate the hand-over and subsequent delivery.]
the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative further being for at least one of the additional packages being delivered after the first time and during the day; [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the adjusted route of both the first and the second vehicle include their own source locations (i.e., origin locations), hand-over location (i.e., the dynamic stop location), and travel destinations (i.e., a delivery location). This is further supported by Fig. 11 which illustrates a route of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprising stops along each route. In this illustration the routes of each vehicle intersect at stop D40 which is representative of the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location). As illustrated in Fig. 11 and described in para. [0036], the hand-over location must be within a predetermined range of any locations along the first and second route such that it is easily accessed by both the first vehicle and the second vehicle. Ohtani further teaches that the original route of the second vehicle included other stops for delivering other packages, such as D22 illustrated in Fig. 11 which indicates the original travel destination of the second vehicle (i.e., the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative further being for at least one of the additional packages being delivered after the first time and during the day).]
sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device).]
sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location and the delivery location to the second mobile computing device [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device).]
wherein the analyzing, the sending the dynamic stop location to the mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the delivery location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the first time. (Examiner’s Note: This language is interpreted to mean that once the analysis is performed and a dynamic stop location is determined, the first and second mobile computing devices are notified in real time.) [See [0088]; (Fig. 12, elements S13, S14, S16, S17); Ohtani discloses a diagram illustrating a sequence of processes by the computerized delivery system 1. Ohtani [0091]; further teaches that step S13 is performed in response to a re-delivery request for a package. This means that the package needs a different vehicle in order to complete the delivery. Step S13 is a matching process in which the package is matched with a second vehicle capable of delivering the package to its destination (i.e., the analyzing). The immediately subsequent step for the system, S14, teaches transmitting information regarding the match in S13 to a first user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is currently stored in, and a second user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is to be transferred to for delivery (i.e., the sending the dynamic stop location to the mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the delivery location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time).]
Although Ohtani teaches obtaining, over the communications network, first package data, Ohtani does not teach obtaining this first package data from the first user terminal (i.e., the first mobile computing device). Instead, Ohtani teaches receiving this information from the delivery requestor (the third user terminal of Ohtani). Furthermore, although Ohtani teaches obtaining first package data, Ohtani does not teach the first package data including origin location data and first time data. Therefore, Ohtani does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. However, Bhatia does disclose the following limitations:
obtaining, over the communications network from the first mobile computing device, first package data including origin location data and first time data; [See [0009]; Bhatia teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle (i.e., the first mobile computing device) reporting a timestamp (i.e., first package data including … first time data) and location of the autonomous vehicle (i.e., first package data including origin location data) to verify that the autonomous delivery vehicle is at a scheduled pickup location. (Examiner’s Note: This disclosure of Bhatia is supported by paragraph [0008] of its provisional application 62/778,843 dated 12/12/2018.)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the delivery vehicle system of Ohtani with the delivery vehicle system of Bhatia. By making this combination, the system of Ohtani would be able to use location information and timestamp information in order to verify that the first vehicle picked up the package for delivery. This would further benefit Ohtani by helping ensure that the package is on the first vehicle before arranging the second vehicle to receive it at the hand-over location for delivery to its delivery destination.
As described above, Ohtani teaches analyzing previously fixed scheduled route data. Ohtani does not, however, teach analyzing previously fixed scheduled route data using a graph search algorithm. Gishen, however, does explicitly teach using a graph search algorithm to analyze route data as described below:
and further analyzing the previously fixed scheduled route data using a graph search algorithm to determine routing information for the first package [See [0047]; Gishen teaches using a graph search algorithm in determining optimal vehicles routes.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the route determining function of Ohtani in view of Bhatia with the use of the graph search algorithm function of Gishen. While Ohtani in view of Bhatia teaches selecting couriers for different transport jobs, and determining routes for said couriers, the graph search algorithm of Gishen could be used by Ohtani in view of Bhatia, instead of its current route determining method, to optimize the routes set out for each courier. Optimal routes would save couriers time, increase recipient satisfaction by reducing transport times, and save on labor and fuel costs for a fleet manager in charge of the couriers of Ohtani in view of Bhatia.
Although Ohtani (Fig. 11); [0030]; [0086-0087] teaches determining a hand-over location of a package where a first and second vehicle will meet to exchange a package. Ohtani teaches doing this in order for the package to be delivered by the second vehicle receiving the package at the hand-over location. Ohtani further teaches that the hand-over location may be within a predetermine range of the preexisting routes of the first and second vehicles. Ohtani further teaches changing either the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle in order to facilitate the exchange at the hand-over location. In the example depicted in Fig. 11, only the route of the second vehicle is modified in order to facilitate the exchange. Ohtani does not, however, teach that the hand-over location must occur directly along both the existing routes of the first and second vehicles. In other words, Ohtani does not teach that the predetermined range from the route must be zero, therefore making the burden on the first and second drivers zero. (Examiner’s Note: By requiring no deviations from both a first and second route, the claims require that the first and second routes intersect in order to accommodate the exchange of a package.) Therefore, Ohtani does not teach the following limitations. Bhatia and Gishen do not remedy the deficiencies of Ohtani. Engle, however, does disclose the following limitations:
wherein ... the dynamic stop location and the delivery location each correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative [See [0024] Engle teaches a dynamic location for a trip of an autonomous vehicle can be a meeting location where the autonomous vehicle meets a second autonomous vehicle. Engle [0037] further teaches that the first autonomous vehicle can meet the second autonomous vehicle at a location along the route to allow a passenger to switch from riding in the first autonomous vehicle to riding in the second autonomous vehicle (i.e., a passenger handoff). Engle [0037] further teaches that the destination of the first autonomous vehicle (i.e., the dynamic stop location) may be a location along the route of the second autonomous vehicle. For instance, the destination of the trip of the autonomous vehicle 100 can be controlled to be the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 at the specific time, where the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 is on a route of the differing trip of the second autonomous vehicle 122 (i.e., the dynamic stop location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) prior to the second autonomous vehicle 122 reaching a drop-off location (i.e., the delivery location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) for the differing trip. Thus, the autonomous vehicle 100 can meet the second autonomous vehicle 122 at a location along the route (e.g., if the passenger of the autonomous vehicle 100 wants to switch from riding in the autonomous vehicle 100 to riding in the second autonomous vehicle 122 to join with passenger(s) of the second autonomous vehicle 122).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the vehicle meeting point determination method of Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen with the vehicle meeting point determination method of Engle. By making this combination, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen could require that both the first vehicle and the second vehicle could not be burdened in order to accommodate the hand-over of a package. Although fewer hand-overs would be possible, this would improve the efficiency of delivery routes, since no deviations would be required.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen in view of Engle discloses all claim 1 limitations. Ohtani does not, however Bhatia does, further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining weather data from a weather data provider and traffic data from a traffic data provider and wherein the analyzing further comprises using the weather data and the traffic data ... [See [0082]; Bhatia teaches storing historical, real-time, and predictive information about a driving environment including traffic congestion updates (i.e., traffic data from a traffic data provider) and weather conditions (i.e., obtaining weather data from a weather data provider). Bhatia [0125] further teaches using this information to make transit determinations.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the transit analysis system of Ohtani with the transit analysis system of Bhatia. By making this combination, Ohtani would be able to take into consideration traffic and weather data which, as stated in Bhatia [0125], could affect transit time and fuel efficiency.
Ohtani in view of Bhatia does not, however Gishen does, further disclose the following limitations:
… (using a) … graph search algorithm. [See [0047]; Gishen teaches using a graph search algorithm in determining optimal vehicles routes.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the route determining function of Ohtani in view of Bhatia with the use of the graph search algorithm function of Gishen. While Ohtani in view of Bhatia teaches selecting couriers for different transport jobs, and determining routes for said couriers, the graph search algorithm of Gishen could be used by Ohtani in view of Bhatia, instead of its current route determining method, to optimize the routes set out for each courier. Optimal routes would save couriers time, increase recipient satisfaction by reducing transport times, and save on labor and fuel costs for a fleet manager in charge of the couriers of Ohtani in view of Bhatia.
Regarding claim 4, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen in view of Engle discloses all claim 1 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative comprises one or more routes of the delivery representative [See (Fig. 11); [0086]; (Fig. 12, element S07); [0090]; Ohtani teaches a first and second delivery vehicle having a respective original first route (i.e., wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the delivery representative comprises one or more routes of the delivery representative) and second route. Ohtani Fig. 11 illustrates both of these original routes in a drawing.]
wherein the other delivery route data comprises one or more other routes followed by each of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives at the times after the first time during the day [See (Fig. 11); [0086]; (Fig. 12, element S07); [0090]; Ohtani teaches a first and second delivery vehicle having a respective original first route and second route (i.e., wherein the other delivery route data comprises one or more other routes followed by each of the one or more preexisting other delivery representatives at the times after the first time during the day). Ohtani Fig. 11 illustrates both of these original routes in a drawing.]
the one or more routes and the one or more other routes being segmented into a plurality of sections [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a start point and an end point [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
the plurality of sections thereby forming a plurality of start points and end points [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a transit time to travel a length of each section [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40. Ohtani [0094] further teaches estimating a scheduled arrival time at each point along a route based in part on the travel distance and the predicted speed of each vehicle.]
wherein each of the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and the delivery location correspond to at least one point in the plurality of start points and end points. [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11 (i.e., the origin location), a destination point D12 (i.e., the delivery location), and a hand-over location of the package D40 (i.e., the dynamic stop location).]
Regarding claim 6, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen in view of Engle discloses all claim 1 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic stop location sent to the first mobile computing device and the dynamic stop location sent to the second mobile computing device are each overlaid or integrated for display on each of the first mobile computing device and the second mobile computing device within a graphical representation of a map associated with the provided dynamic stop location. [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches a first route and a second route for a first and second delivery vehicle, respectively. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40 (i.e., the dynamic stop location). Ohtani [0043; [0045]; (Fig. 12, elements S08, S19); further teaches transmitting travel routes to both the first user terminal (i.e., the first mobile computing device) and the second user terminal (i.e., the second mobile computing device) in the form of a displayed travel route on a map (i.e., display on each of the first mobile computing device and the second mobile computing device within a graphical representation of a map). Therefore, Ohtani teaches transmitting travel routes to both the first user terminal and the second user terminal comprising the same hand-over location of the package D40 (i.e., the dynamic stop location).]
Regarding claim 8, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen in view of Engle discloses all claim 1 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein automatically determining the second preexisting delivery representative further comprises automatically determining that the first package can be delivered on the day the first package data is acquired based on at least one of: the first time, a location of each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices within a service zone, weather data, traffic data, day of the week information associated with the day, or a size of the first package. [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining that the first package can be delivered on the day the first package data is acquired). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0062] searches for a vehicle, driver, and associated user terminal (i.e., automatically determining the second preexisting delivery representative) whose existing travel route is within a predetermined range of the hand-over location of the package and the delivery destination of the package (i.e., based on … a location of each other associated mobile computing device of the plurality of other associated mobile computing devices within a service zone).]
Regarding claim 23, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Gishen in view of Engle discloses all claim 1 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile computing device is a hand-held device. [See [0051]; Ohtani teaches that the user terminals (i.e., the first mobile computing device) are small computers such as smartphones (i.e., a hand-held device).]
Claims 7, 9-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051021) in view of Bhatia (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0193368) in view of Engle (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057438).]
Regarding claim 7, Ohtani disclose the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: (Examiner’s Note: based on the specification, there is no clear, narrow definition for “dynamic stop location.” Spec. para. [0029] describes a route and stops being communicated dynamically and/or in real time. Spec. paras. [0032-0034] describe dynamic delivery scheduling which may be based on optimizing travel routes for the day, including using or avoiding major arteries in the delivery area and which brick and mortar stores have packages for that day. Spec. para. [0048] teaches service zones including one or more dynamic bus stops, which are determined by the scheduling system. As such, Examiner has interpreted the term “dynamic stop location” to indicate a stop location assigned to a courier after the package has already begun a leg of its transit.) [See [Abstract] Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle with a package with a second vehicle. Ohtani further teaches, after a package is already in transit, arranging the first and second vehicle to meet at a location (i.e., generating a dynamic stop location) in order for the package to be reloaded from the first vehicle into the second vehicle for delivery. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); teaches receiving a third user requesting delivery of a package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); further teaches the delivery request including a source location, a delivery destination, and a delivery period of the package. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S03); further teaches matching the delivery request with a first vehicle based on its ability to deliver the package based on the delivery request information. Ohtani [0044]; teaches a seller loading the package into the first delivery vehicle at a source location in order for the first user to deliver it to its destination. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S04); further teaches transmitting the matching information to a first user terminal.]
obtaining, over a communications network at a first time during a day, delivery information for a product purchased from a retailer [See [0044]; [0057]; Ohtani teaches receiving information and a delivery request from a third user who has purchased a product from a seller and wishes the product to be delivered.]
wherein the delivery information comprises instructions for a delivery of the product within a specific geographical area [See [0057]; Ohtani teaches receiving information and a delivery request from a third user who has purchased a product from a seller and wishes the product to be delivered. Ohtani [0089-0090] (Fig. 12, elements S01, S07, S08) teaches receiving a delivery request and, based on the received delivery request, transmitting a travel route to a first vehicle which will be used to deliver the package to the delivery destination.]
wherein … (the package is received at) … a pickup time during the day after the first time during the day [See [0061]; Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle to a package that needs to be delivered. Ohtani further teaches requiring the first vehicle to travel to a source location within a predetermined range of an existing scheduled travel route of the first vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle first being matched with a package (i.e., the first time during the day) and then, afterwards, the first vehicle being loaded with the package (i.e., a pickup time during the day after the first time during the day).]
wherein the pickup time corresponds to an expected time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location; [See [0061]; Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle to a package that needs to be delivered. Ohtani further teaches requiring the first vehicle to travel to a source location within a predetermined range of an existing scheduled travel route of the first vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle first being matched with a package and then, afterwards, the first vehicle being loaded with the package. Ohtani [0044] further teaches the package being received from a seller in order for the package to be delivered to a purchaser of the goods in the package (i.e., wherein the pickup time corresponds to an expected time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location).]
preparing, by a hardware processor, packing instructions for a package containing the product; [See [0061]; Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle to a package that needs to be delivered. Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S03) further teaches matching a first vehicle to a package, which indicates that the first vehicle has been assigned to load the package into it (i.e., preparing, by a hardware processor, packing instructions for a package containing the product) and deliver the package to a destination.]
automatically determining that the package can be delivered during the day that the package is received from the retailer using a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives based on at least one of: the pickup time, a location of each of a plurality of mobile computing devices within a service zone, weather data, traffic data, day of the week information associated with the day, or a size of the package [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining that the package can be delivered during the day that the package is received from the retailer using a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0061] searches for a vehicle, driver, and associated user terminal whose existing travel route is within a predetermined range of the source location of the package and the delivery destination of the package (i.e., based on at least one of … a location of each of a plurality of mobile computing devices within a service zone).]
wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices within the service zone is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; [See [0040] Ohtani teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., each of the plurality of mobile computing devices within the service zone). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal (i.e., wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices within the service zone is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives).]
generating, by the hardware processor, a scheduled pickup time and a dynamic stop time and the dynamic stop location for the package, the scheduled pickup time corresponding to a scheduled time the package will be received from the retailer at the origin location, the scheduled pickup time being during the day on or after the pickup time during the day and the dynamic stop time being during the day [See [0044]; (Fig. 12, elements S03, S07, S11, S13, S18); [0089-0092]; (Fig. 11); [0076]; Ohtani teaches a package being loaded into a first vehicle for delivery based on a first matching step S03, and generating a “scheduled travel route” for the first vehicle based the source location of the package, the first vehicle’s current position, and the first vehicle’s travel destination (i.e., generating, by the hardware processor, a scheduled pickup time ... the scheduled pickup time being during the day on or after the pickup time during the day). Ohtani further teaches receiving a re-delivery request which requires the package to be transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at step S11. Ohtani further teaches matching a second vehicle in step S13. Ohtani then teaches a transfer of the package from the first vehicle to the second vehicle to take place at a designated hand-over location (i.e., generating … the dynamic stop location for the package). Ohtani [0104]; teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request hand-over of the package on the same day (i.e., generating … a dynamic stop time ... the dynamic stop time being during the day) the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle.]
the generating based on the automatically determining [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining that the package can be delivered during the day that the package is received from the retailer using a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0061] searches for a vehicle, driver, and associated user terminal whose existing travel route is within a predetermined range of the source location of the package and the delivery destination of the package (i.e., based on at least one of … a location of each of a plurality of mobile computing devices within a service zone). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0092]; teaches that generating pickup, and hand-over of a package is based upon first matching the first and second delivery vehicles to the package (i.e., the generating based on the automatically determining).]
the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops [As described above, Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0092]; teaches that generating pickup, and hand-over of a package is based upon first matching the first and second delivery vehicles to the package (i.e., the generating based on the automatically determining). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03); [0089]; [0061]; further teaches that the matching step S03 is based in part on the originally scheduled travel route of the first vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that generating pickup and hand-over of a package is based in-part upon the originally scheduled travel route of the first vehicle (i.e. the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a first preexisting delivery representative).]
the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a second preexisting delivery representative [As described above, Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0092]; teaches that generating pickup, and hand-over of a package is based upon first matching the first and second delivery vehicles to the package (i.e., the generating based on the automatically determining). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03); [0089]; [0062]; further teaches that the matching step S13 is based in part on the originally scheduled travel route of the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that generating pickup and hand-over of a package is based in-part upon the originally scheduled travel route of the second vehicle (i.e. the generating further based on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of a second preexisting delivery representative).]
wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other first preexisting package after the first time during the day [See [0061]; [0027]; (Fig. 12, element S03); Ohtani teaches a first vehicle carrying packages in the available space of the vehicle. Ohtani further teaches the first vehicle having an existing travel route for delivering packages before the first vehicle is matched with a new package in step S03. Ohtani further teaches that the existing travel route for the first vehicle is then changed in order to accommodate the delivery of the new package.]
wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative is for delivery of at least one other second preexisting package after the first time during the day [See [0062]; [0027]; (Fig. 12, element S13); Ohtani teaches a second vehicle carrying packages in the available space of the vehicle. Ohtani further teaches the second vehicle having an existing travel route for delivering packages before the second vehicle is matched with a new package in step S13. Ohtani further teaches that the existing travel route for the second vehicle is then changed in order to accommodate the delivery of the new package.]
wherein each of the first preexisting delivery representative and the second preexisting delivery representative are one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives [See [0027]; [0061-0062] Ohtani teaches that a first user drives a first delivery vehicle to make deliveries and a second user drives a second delivery vehicle to make deliveries.]
wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; [See [0036]; [0061]; Ohtani teaches that a hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location) is set within a predetermined range of locations along the route which the first vehicle is scheduled to travel. Ohtani further teaches changing the travel route of the first vehicle in order to accommodate the hand-over location stop. This means that the originally scheduled travel route of the first vehicle does not include the hand-over location (i.e., wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location).]
sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to a first mobile computing device associated with the first preexisting delivery representative; [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to a first mobile computing device associated with the first preexisting delivery representative).]
sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network, the dynamic stop location and a delivery location to a second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location … to the second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative). Ohtani further teaches the second user terminal of the second vehicle receiving a new travel route including the delivery destination of the package (i.e., sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network … a delivery location to a second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative).]
wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative [See (Fig. 11, elements D11, D12, D40); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches that the hand-over location D40 is a location that is already along the existing travel route of the first vehicle (i.e., wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first delivery representative). This is depicted in Fig. 11. The travel route of the first vehicle is not changed at all. Instead, the travel route of the second vehicle is modified in order to accommodate the hand-over and subsequent delivery.]
wherein the automatically determining, the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the first time. (Examiner’s Note: This language is interpreted to mean that once the analysis is performed and a dynamic stop location is determined, the first and second mobile computing devices are notified in real time.) [See [0088]; (Fig. 12, elements S13, S14, S16, S17); Ohtani discloses a diagram illustrating a sequence of processes by the computerized delivery system 1. Ohtani [0091]; further teaches that step S13 is performed in response to a re-delivery request for a package. This means that the package needs a different vehicle in order to complete the delivery. Step S13 is a matching process in which the package is matched with a second vehicle capable of delivering the package to its destination (i.e., the automatically determining). The immediately subsequent step for the system, S14, teaches transmitting information regarding the match in S13 to a first user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is currently stored in, and a second user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is to be transferred to for delivery (i.e., the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time).]
Although Ohtani teaches receiving delivery information, Ohtani does not teach the delivery information comprising a pickup time or an origin location. Therefore, Ohtani does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. However, Bhatia does disclose the following limitations:
wherein the delivery information further comprises a pickup time during the day … and an origin location [See [0009]; Bhatia teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle (i.e., the first mobile computing device) reporting a timestamp (i.e., first package data including … first time data) and location of the autonomous vehicle (i.e., first package data including origin location data) to verify that the autonomous delivery vehicle is at a scheduled pickup location. (Examiner’s Note: This disclosure of Bhatia is supported by paragraph [0008] of its provisional application 62/778,843 dated 12/12/2018.)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the delivery vehicle system of Ohtani with the delivery vehicle system of Bhatia. By making this combination, the system of Ohtani would be able to use location information and timestamp information in order to verify that the first vehicle picked up the package for delivery. This would further benefit Ohtani by helping ensure that the package is on the first vehicle before arranging the second vehicle to receive it at the hand-over location for delivery to its delivery destination.
Although Ohtani (Fig. 11); [0030]; [0086-0087] teaches determining a hand-over location of a package where a first and second vehicle will meet to exchange a package. Ohtani teaches doing this in order for the package to be delivered by the second vehicle receiving the package at the hand-over location. Ohtani further teaches that the hand-over location may be within a predetermine range of the preexisting routes of the first and second vehicles. Ohtani further teaches changing either the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle in order to facilitate the exchange at the hand-over location. In the example depicted in Fig. 11, only the route of the second vehicle is modified in order to facilitate the exchange. Ohtani does not, however, teach that the hand-over location must occur directly along both the existing routes of the first and second vehicles. In other words, Ohtani does not teach that the predetermined range from the route must be zero, therefore making the burden on the first and second drivers zero. (Examiner’s Note: By requiring no deviations from both a first and second route, the claims require that the first and second routes intersect in order to accommodate the exchange of a package.) Therefore, Ohtani does not teach the following limitations. Bhatia does not remedy the deficiencies of Ohtani. Engle, however, does disclose the following limitations:
wherein the dynamic stop location and the delivery location correspond to locations along the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative; [See [0024] Engle teaches a dynamic location for a trip of an autonomous vehicle can be a meeting location where the autonomous vehicle meets a second autonomous vehicle. Engle [0037] further teaches that the first autonomous vehicle can meet the second autonomous vehicle at a location along the route to allow a passenger to switch from riding in the first autonomous vehicle to riding in the second autonomous vehicle (i.e., a passenger handoff). Engle [0037] further teaches that the destination of the first autonomous vehicle (i.e., the dynamic stop location) may be a location along the route of the second autonomous vehicle. For instance, the destination of the trip of the autonomous vehicle 100 can be controlled to be the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 at the specific time, where the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 is on a route of the differing trip of the second autonomous vehicle 122 (i.e., the dynamic stop location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) prior to the second autonomous vehicle 122 reaching a drop-off location (i.e., the delivery location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) for the differing trip. Thus, the autonomous vehicle 100 can meet the second autonomous vehicle 122 at a location along the route (e.g., if the passenger of the autonomous vehicle 100 wants to switch from riding in the autonomous vehicle 100 to riding in the second autonomous vehicle 122 to join with passenger(s) of the second autonomous vehicle 122).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the vehicle meeting point determination method of Ohtani in view of Bhatia with the vehicle meeting point determination method of Engle. By making this combination, Ohtani in view of Bhatia could require that both the first vehicle and the second vehicle could not be burdened in order to accommodate the hand-over of a package. Although fewer hand-overs would be possible, this would improve the efficiency of delivery routes, since no deviations would be required.
Regarding claim 9, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Engle discloses all claim 7 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the generating further comprises automatically determining that the dynamic stop location for the package corresponds to a location along the one or more previously fixed scheduled travel routes based on a geographic position of the first mobile computing device. [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the adjusted route of both the first and the second vehicle include their own source locations (i.e., origin locations), hand-over location (i.e., the dynamic stop location), and travel destinations (i.e., a delivery location). This is further supported by Fig. 11 which illustrates a route of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprising stops along each route. In this illustration the routes of each vehicle intersect at stop D40 which is representative of the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location). As illustrated in Fig. 11 and described in para. [0036] and [0061-0062], the hand-over location must be within a predetermined range of any locations along the first and second route such that it is easily accessed by both the first vehicle and the second vehicle (i.e., wherein the generating further comprises automatically determining that the dynamic stop location for the package corresponds to a location along the one or more previously fixed scheduled travel routes based on a geographic position of the first mobile computing device).]
Regarding claim 10, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Engle discloses all claim 7 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the generating further comprises obtaining, over the communications network, geolocation data for the first mobile computing device, and geolocation data for the second mobile computing device. [See Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0061-0062] teaches taking into account the current position of the first and second vehicle (i.e., wherein the generating further comprises obtaining, over the communications network, geolocation data for the first mobile computing device, and geolocation data for the second mobile computing device). Ohtani [0040] teaches that there are the same number of users, vehicles, and terminals. In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal.]
Regarding claim 11, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Engle discloses all claim 7 and 10 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the geolocation data comprises one or more of an identifier for the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, a timestamp, a current global satellite coordinate, and a current longitude-latitude identifier. [See [0061-0062]; Ohtani teaches taking into account the current position of the first and second vehicle when making package matching determinations. Ohtani [0066] further teaches that the current positions of the first and second vehicle are expressed in latitude and longitude (i.e., wherein the geolocation data comprises … a current longitude-latitude identifier.).]
Regarding claim 12, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Engle discloses all claim 7 and 10 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the geolocation data is updated on a periodic basis. [See [0072] Ohtani teaches updating the current position of each vehicle, user, and user terminal every predetermined period of time, such as every 60 seconds (i.e., wherein the geolocation data is updated on a periodic basis).]
Regarding claim 21, Ohtani in view of Bhatia in view of Engle discloses all claim 7 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein each of the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative and the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative is segmented into a plurality of sections [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a start point and an end point [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
the plurality of sections thereby forming a plurality of start points and end points [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a transit time to travel a length of each section [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40. Ohtani [0094] further teaches estimating a scheduled arrival time at each point along a route based in part on the travel distance and the predicted speed of each vehicle.]
wherein each of the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and the delivery location correspond to at least one point in the plurality of start points and end points. [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11 (i.e., the origin location), a destination point D12 (i.e., the delivery location), and a hand-over location of the package D40 (i.e., the dynamic stop location).]
Claims 13-15, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0051021) in view of Lievens (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0279664) in view of Ellison (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0071056) in view of Engle (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057438).
Regarding claim 13, Ohtani discloses the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method for generating a dynamic stop location comprising: (Examiner’s Note: based on the specification, there is no clear, narrow definition for “dynamic stop location.” Spec. para. [0029] describes a route and stops being communicated dynamically and/or in real time. Spec. paras. [0032-0034] describe dynamic delivery scheduling which may be based on optimizing travel routes for the day, including using or avoiding major arteries in the delivery area and which brick and mortar stores have packages for that day. Spec. para. [0048] teaches service zones including one or more dynamic bus stops, which are determined by the scheduling system. As such, Examiner has interpreted the term “dynamic stop location” to indicate a stop location assigned to a courier after the package has already begun a leg of its transit.) [See [Abstract] Ohtani teaches matching a first vehicle with a package with a second vehicle. Ohtani further teaches, after a package is already in transit, arranging the first and second vehicle to meet at a location (i.e., generating a dynamic stop location for a first package) in order for the package to be reloaded from the first vehicle into the second vehicle for delivery.]
obtaining, over a communications network from a customer computer device at an initial time and during a day, information for a plurality of packages to be delivered; Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); teaches receiving a delivery request from a third user requesting delivery of a package (i.e., obtaining, over a communications network from a customer computer device at an initial time and during a day, information for a plurality of packages to be delivered). Ohtani [0089]; (Fig. 12, element S01); further teaches the delivery request including a source location, a delivery destination, and a delivery period of the package. Ohtani [0044]; teaches a seller loading the package into the first delivery vehicle at a source location in order for the first user to deliver it to its destination.]
wherein the first preexisting delivery representative is one of a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; [See [0027]; [0061-0062] Ohtani teaches that a first user drives a first delivery vehicle to make deliveries and a second user drives a second delivery vehicle to make deliveries (i.e., wherein the first preexisting delivery representative is one of a plurality of preexisting delivery representatives).]
automatically determining, by the hardware processor, whether a first package of the plurality of packages can be delivered on the day; [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining, by the hardware processor, whether a first package of the plurality of packages can be delivered on the day). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package.]
wherein the automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day comprises determining, by the hardware processor, whether a destination for the first package is on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0061] searches for a vehicle, driver, and associated user terminal whose existing travel route is within a predetermined range of the source location of the package and the delivery destination of the package (i.e., determining, by the hardware processor, whether a destination for the first package is on a previously fixed scheduled travel route of one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives).]
wherein the previously fixed scheduled travel route is for delivery of one or more other preexisting packages by the one or more of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives at times during the day after the initial time; [See [0061]; [0027]; (Fig. 12, element S03); Ohtani teaches a first vehicle carrying packages in the available space of the vehicle. Ohtani further teaches the first vehicle having an existing travel route for delivering packages before the first vehicle is matched with a new package in step S03. Ohtani further teaches that the existing travel route for the first vehicle is then changed in order to accommodate the delivery of the new package.]
automatically generating the dynamic stop location for the first package based on the destination, location information for each of a plurality of mobile computing devices, and the previously fixed scheduled travel route including previously scheduled stops [See [0044]; (Fig. 12, elements S03, S07, S11, S13, S18); [0089-0092]; (Fig. 11); Ohtani teaches a package being loaded into a first vehicle for delivery based on a first matching step S03 (i.e., generating, by the hardware processor, a pickup time during the day on or after the pickup time during the day). Ohtani further teaches receiving a re-delivery request which requires the package to be transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at step S11. Ohtani further teaches matching a second vehicle in step S13. Ohtani then teaches a transfer of the package from the first vehicle to the second vehicle to take place at a designated hand-over location (i.e., generating the dynamic stop location for the first package). Ohtani [0036] teaches that the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location) is based on a predetermined range from the first vehicle travel route and the second vehicle travel route (i.e., based on … the previously fixed scheduled travel route including previously scheduled stops). Ohtani [0035] further teaches that the hand-over location is based on a predetermined range from any location on the route including the delivery destination (i.e., based on the destination). Ohtani [0063] further teaches that the hand-over location is based upon potential routes for the first vehicle which pass through the current position of the first vehicle, the hand-over location, and the travel destination, and is also based upon potential routes for a second vehicle which pass through a current position of the second vehicle, the hand-over location, and the travel destination of the second vehicle (i.e., based … location information for each of a plurality of mobile computing devices).]
wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives; [See [0040] Ohtani teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., each of the plurality of mobile computing devices). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal (i.e., wherein each of the plurality of mobile computing devices is associated with at least one of the plurality of preexisting delivery representatives).]
sending the dynamic stop location over the communications network to the first mobile computing device [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device).]
wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least one of the one or more preexisting packages at a first time during the day after the initial time [See [0061]; [0027]; (Fig. 12, element S03); Ohtani teaches a first vehicle carrying packages in the available space of the vehicle. Ohtani further teaches the first vehicle having an existing travel route for delivering packages before the first vehicle is matched with a new package in step S03. Ohtani further teaches that the existing travel route for the first vehicle is then changed in order to accommodate the delivery of the new package (i.e., a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops, the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least one of the one or more preexisting packages at a first time during the day after the initial time). Ohtani [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; further teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the adjusted route of both the first and the second vehicle include their own source locations (i.e., origin locations), hand-over location (i.e., the dynamic stop location), and travel destinations (i.e., a delivery location). This is further supported by Fig. 11 which illustrates a route of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprising stops along each route. In this illustration the routes of each vehicle intersect at stop D40 which is representative of the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location). As illustrated in Fig. 11 and described in para. [0036], the hand-over location must be within a predetermined range of any locations along the first and second route such that it is easily accessed by both the first vehicle and the second vehicle (i.e., wherein the dynamic stop location corresponds to a location along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative including previously scheduled stops).]
wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location; [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route, which originally do not have a hand-over stop (i.e., wherein the previously scheduled stops of the first preexisting delivery representative do not include the dynamic stop location), are adjusted in order to include the hand-over stop. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle.]
automatically determining, based on the dynamic stop location, the previously fixed scheduled travel route, and the destination, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative; [See [0040] Ohtani teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., a second preexisting delivery representative), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., a second mobile computing device). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal (i.e., a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative). Ohtani [0062]; (Fig. 12, element S13, S16, S18); [0091]; further teaches matching a package with a re-delivery request to a second vehicle which will have the package transferred to it at a hand-over location. Ohtani then teaches sending matching information and updated route information to the second user terminal belonging to the driver of the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining, based on the dynamic stop location, the previously fixed scheduled travel route, and the destination, a second mobile computing device associated with a second preexisting delivery representative).]
sending the dynamic stop location and the destination to the second mobile computing device [See (Fig. 12, element S14, S18); [0091-0093] Ohtani teaches that, once the second match is complete, the server generates a new travel route for the first and second vehicle including the hand-over location and transmits the matching and routing information to the first and second vehicle (i.e., sending, over the communications network, the dynamic stop location … to the second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative). Ohtani further teaches the second user terminal of the second vehicle receiving a new travel route including the delivery destination of the package (i.e., sending, by the hardware processor over the communications network … a delivery location to a second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative).]
the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least another of the one or more preexisting packages at a second time during the day after the initial time; [See [0062]; [0027]; (Fig. 12, element S03); Ohtani teaches a second vehicle carrying packages in the available space of the vehicle. Ohtani further teaches the second vehicle having an existing travel route for delivering packages before the second vehicle is matched with a new package in step S13 (i.e., the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative being for delivery of at least another of the one or more preexisting packages at a second time during the day after the initial time). Ohtani further teaches that the existing travel route for the second vehicle is then changed in order to accommodate the delivery of the new package. Ohtani [0062]; (Fig. 12, element S13); [0091]; further teaches matching the package associated with the re-delivery request with the second vehicle. Ohtani further teaches that this match is based on the originally scheduled traveling route of the second vehicle being within a predetermined range of a hand-over location.]
wherein the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the destination to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time with respect to the initial time. (Examiner’s Note: This language is interpreted to mean that once the analysis is performed and a dynamic stop location is determined, the first and second mobile computing devices are notified in real time.) [See [0088]; (Fig. 12, elements S13, S14, S16, S17); Ohtani discloses a diagram illustrating a sequence of processes by the computerized delivery system 1. Ohtani [0091]; further teaches that step S13 is performed in response to a re-delivery request for a package. This means that the package needs a different vehicle in order to complete the delivery. Step S13 is a matching process in which the package is matched with a second vehicle capable of delivering the package to its destination (i.e., the automatically determining). The immediately subsequent step for the system, S14, teaches transmitting information regarding the match in S13 to a first user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is currently stored in, and a second user terminal belonging to the driver of the vehicle the package is to be transferred to for delivery (i.e., the sending the dynamic stop location to the first mobile computing device, and the sending the dynamic stop location and the destination to the second mobile computing device occur at real time or near real time).]
Ohtani does not, however Lievens does, explicitly disclose the following limitations:
determining, by a hardware processor, whether a volume of the plurality of packages exceeds a predetermined volume threshold; [See [0018]; [0075]; Lievens teaches determining when the physical space at an attended delivery/pickup location reaches 95% maximum capacity (i.e. determining, by a hardware processor, whether a volume of the plurality of packages exceeds a predetermined volume threshold).]
in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is exceeded, providing to the customer computer device over the communications network, a first drop-off location, [See [0051] Lievens teaches customers shopping at a store and wanting an unavailable item. Lievens further teaches the customer requesting the unavailable item sent to an attended delivery/pickup location other than the delivery/pickup location at the store. Lievens (Fig. 1, Fig. 2); [0029]; [0003]; teaches a customer using a computing device in order to make this request. [0075]; [0018]; Lievens teaches rerouting the customer’s parcels to an alternative attended delivery/pickup location when an initial attended delivery/pickup location reaches 95% maximum capacity, and directing parcels to be dropped off at the alternative location (i.e., providing to the customer computer device over the communications network, a first drop-off location) accordingly.]
wherein the first drop off location corresponds to a high volume drop-off location; [See [0075]; [0018]; Lievens teaches that the alternative drop off location (i.e., a high drop-off location) is for packages received after an initial delivery/pickup location reaches 95% maximum capacity (i.e., wherein the first drop off location corresponds to a high volume drop-off location).]
in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is not exceeded, providing, over the communications network, a pickup location to a first mobile computing device associated with a first preexisting delivery representative for pickup at a time after the initial time during the day at an origin location. [See [0075]; [0018]; Lievens further teaches that the items requested by the customer may be directed to an alternative drop off location (i.e., a high drop-off location) of the initial delivery/pickup location reaches 95% maximum capacity. If this capacity is not reached, however, the items will be directed to the initial delivery/pickup location. Lievens [0012]; teaches that the customer may later travel to the delivery/pickup location in order to pick up the requested item. Lievens [0044] further teaches notifying the intended recipient that the requested item was delivered to the initial delivery/pickup location (because it was not almost full to capacity (i.e., the predetermined volume threshold is not exceeded)) and is ready for pickup (i.e., in response to determining that the predetermined volume threshold is not exceeded, providing, over the communications network, a pickup location). Lievens [0091] further teaches a user ordering an item online and then picking the item up on the same day (i.e., pickup at a time after the initial time during the day) from a delivery/pickup location (i.e., pickup … at an origin location).]
in response to automatically determining that the first package cannot be delivered on the day, providing, over the communications network to the first mobile computing device, a second drop-off location [See [0051] Lievens teaches customers shopping at a store and wanting an unavailable item. Lievens further teaches the customer requesting the unavailable item sent to an attended delivery/pickup location other than the delivery/pickup location at the store. Lievens (Fig. 1, Fig. 2); [0029]; [0003]; teaches a customer using a computing device in order to make this request. Lievens [0091] further teaches a user being directed to a delivery/pickup location where they can pick up the item same day. However, Lievens [0081] teaches reserving spaces at a delivery/pickup location on a particular day or days in the future. Lievens [0017] also teaches presenting users with delivery/pickup location options based on whether the delivery/pickup location is open, or based on the delivery/pickup location’s hours of operation. Therefore, in summation, Lievens teaches a customer ordering an item which is only available for delivery/pickup on a particular day in the future (i.e., in response to automatically determining that the first package cannot be delivered on the day) and presenting the customer with different delivery/pickup locations which are open and operating during that day (i.e., providing, over the communications network to the first mobile computing device, a second drop-off location).]
wherein the second drop-off location corresponds to a … (future day) … delivery location for delivery of the first package on the … (future day) … [See [0091] Lievens teaches a user being directed to a delivery/pickup location where they can pick up the item same day. However, Lievens [0081] teaches reserving spaces at a delivery/pickup location on a particular day or days in the future. Lievens [0017] also teaches presenting users with delivery/pickup location options based on whether the delivery/pickup location is open, or based on the delivery/pickup location’s hours of operation. Therefore, in summation, Lievens teaches a customer ordering an item which is only available for pickup on a particular day in the future (i.e. wherein the second drop-off location corresponds to a … (future day) … delivery location for delivery of the first package on the … (future day) …) and presenting the customer with different delivery/pickup locations which are open and operating during that day.]
Although Lievens teaches a user arranging for delivery to a delivery/pickup location on a future day, Lievens does not teach arranging for delivery specifically “next-day.” Therefore, Ohtani in view of Lievens does not, however Ellison does, disclose the following limitations:
… next day delivery … [See [0089]; [0071]; [0081]; Ellison teaches a customer ordering an item that cannot be ordered with same day delivery but can be ordered with next day delivery and arranging for it to be delivered next day.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the delivery system of Ohtani in view of Lievens with the delivery system of Ellison. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the next day delivery of Ellison for the future day delivery of Ohtani in view of Lievens. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Although Ohtani (Fig. 11); [0030]; [0086-0087] teaches determining a hand-over location of a package where a first and second vehicle will meet to exchange a package. Ohtani teaches doing this in order for the package to be delivered by the second vehicle receiving the package at the hand-over location. Ohtani further teaches that the hand-over location may be within a predetermine range of the preexisting routes of the first and second vehicles. Ohtani further teaches changing either the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle in order to facilitate the exchange at the hand-over location. In the example depicted in Fig. 11, only the route of the second vehicle is modified in order to facilitate the exchange. Ohtani does not, however, teach that the hand-over location must occur directly along both the existing routes of the first and second vehicles. In other words, Ohtani does not teach that the predetermined range from the route must be zero, therefore making the burden on the first and second drivers zero. (Examiner’s Note: By requiring no deviations from both a first and second route, the claims require that the first and second routes intersect in order to accommodate the exchange of a package.) Therefore, Ohtani does not teach the following limitations. Lievens and Ellison do not remedy the deficiencies of Ohtani. Engle, however, does disclose the following limitations:
wherein the destination and the dynamic stop location correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative [See [0024] Engle teaches a dynamic location for a trip of an autonomous vehicle can be a meeting location where the autonomous vehicle meets a second autonomous vehicle. Engle [0037] further teaches that the first autonomous vehicle can meet the second autonomous vehicle at a location along the route to allow a passenger to switch from riding in the first autonomous vehicle to riding in the second autonomous vehicle (i.e., a passenger handoff). Engle [0037] further teaches that the destination of the first autonomous vehicle (i.e., the dynamic stop location) may be a location along the route of the second autonomous vehicle. For instance, the destination of the trip of the autonomous vehicle 100 can be controlled to be the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 at the specific time, where the location of the second autonomous vehicle 122 is on a route of the differing trip of the second autonomous vehicle 122 (i.e., the dynamic stop location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) prior to the second autonomous vehicle 122 reaching a drop-off location (i.e., the delivery location ... correspond to locations along a previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative) for the differing trip. Thus, the autonomous vehicle 100 can meet the second autonomous vehicle 122 at a location along the route (e.g., if the passenger of the autonomous vehicle 100 wants to switch from riding in the autonomous vehicle 100 to riding in the second autonomous vehicle 122 to join with passenger(s) of the second autonomous vehicle 122).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the vehicle meeting point determination method of Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison with the vehicle meeting point determination method of Engle. By making this combination, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison could require that both the first vehicle and the second vehicle could not be burdened in order to accommodate the hand-over of a package. Although fewer hand-overs would be possible, this would improve the efficiency of delivery routes, since no deviations would be required.
Regarding claim 14, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day is based on at least one of: the initial time at which information about the first package was received from the customer, a location of each of the first mobile computing device and the second mobile computing device within a service zone, weather data, traffic data, day of the week information associated with the day, or a size of the first package. [See [0104]; Ohtani teaches an alternative embodiment in which a package is transferred from a first vehicle to a second vehicle at a hand-over location on one day, and delivery to the recipient is requested to take place on a different day. This indicates that the primary embodiment of Ohtani teaches delivery requests request delivery of the package to the recipient on the same day the package is picked up by the first vehicle and handed off to the second vehicle (i.e., automatically determining whether the first package can be delivered on the day). Ohtani (Fig. 12, elements S03, S13); [0089-0091] further teaches determining whether the package can be delivered on the same day as the pickup day based on the matching steps. Ohtani does this by searching for a vehicle which is able to deliver the package. In determining which vehicles are able to deliver the package Ohtani [0061] searches for a vehicle, driver, and associated user terminal whose existing travel route is within a predetermined range of the source location of the package and the delivery destination of the package (i.e., based on at least one of … a location of each of the first mobile computing device and the second mobile computing device within a service zone).]
Regarding claim 15, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the automatically determining whether the destination for the first package corresponds to the previously fixed scheduled travel route is based on a geographic position of the second mobile computing device. [See [0085]; [0090-0092]; [0036]; Ohtani teaches analyzing the currently scheduled travel routes of a first vehicle and a plurality of second vehicles in order to determine a match. Ohtani further teaches that when a match is made, both the first vehicle route and the second vehicle route are adjusted to accommodate a stop at a hand-over location. A hand-over location is set so that the first and second vehicle meet at the hand-over location in order for the package to be taken out of the first vehicle and loaded into the second vehicle. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the adjusted route of both the first and the second vehicle include their own source locations (i.e., origin locations), hand-over location (i.e., the dynamic stop location), and travel destinations (i.e., a delivery location). This is further supported by Fig. 11 which illustrates a route of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprising stops along each route. In this illustration the routes of each vehicle intersect at stop D40 which is representative of the hand-over location (i.e., dynamic stop location). As illustrated in Fig. 11 and described in para. [0036] and [0061-0062], the hand-over location must be within a predetermined range of any locations along the first and second route such that it is easily accessed by both the first vehicle and the second vehicle. More specifically, Ohtani [0062] teaches that matching the delivery of the package to the second vehicle is based on whether the travel route and current position of the second vehicle is within a predetermined range of the delivery destination of the package (i.e., wherein the automatically determining whether the destination for the first package corresponds to the previously fixed scheduled travel route is based on a geographic position of the second mobile computing device).]
Regarding claim 17, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13 and 14 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 14, further comprising obtaining, over the communications network, real-time geolocation data for the first mobile computing device associated with the first preexisting delivery representative, and real-time geolocation data for the second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative. [See [0028]; [0066] Ohtani teaches collecting current (i.e., real-time) position data expressed in latitude and longitude (i.e., geolocation data) of the first and second vehicles. As mentioned above, Ohtani [0040] teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., preexisting delivery representatives), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., mobile computing devices). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal. Therefore, Ohtani teaches collecting the current position data of a first user terminal and a second user terminal associated with a first and second user, respectively (i.e., obtaining, over the communications network, real-time geolocation data for the first mobile computing device associated with the first preexisting delivery representative, and real-time geolocation data for the second mobile computing device associated with the second preexisting delivery representative).]
Regarding claim 18, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13, 14, and 17 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising obtaining, over the communications network, geolocation data for mobile computing devices associated with preexisting delivery representatives in adjacent service zones. [See [0061-0062] Ohtani teaches a first predetermined range used to match the delivery of a package with a first vehicle. Ohtani teaches that this first predetermined range is set based on the scheduled traveling route of the first vehicle. Ohtani further teaches second predetermined ranges used to match the delivery of a package with a second vehicle of a plurality of candidate second vehicles. Ohtani teaches that this second predetermined range is set based on the scheduled traveling route of each of the second vehicles. Ohtani further teaches that the first predetermined range may be different from the second predetermined range. Ohtani further teaches that the first and second predetermined ranges overlap to include a designated hand-over location where the package is transferred from the first vehicle to the candidate second vehicles. Therefore, Ohtani teaches that the first predetermined range is adjacent to the second predetermined ranges. Ohtani further teaches collecting the current positions of these candidate second vehicles associated with candidate second users in the adjacent second predetermined ranges (i.e., obtaining, over the communications network, geolocation data for mobile computing devices associated with preexisting delivery representatives in adjacent service zones).]
Regarding claim 19, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13, 14, and 17 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the real-time geolocation data comprises one or more of: an identifier for the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative, a timestamp, a current global satellite coordinate, and a current longitude-latitude identifier. [See [0061-0062]; Ohtani teaches taking into account the current position of the first and second vehicle when making package matching determinations. Ohtani [0066] further teaches that the current positions of the first and second vehicle are expressed in latitude and longitude (i.e., wherein the geolocation data comprises … a current longitude-latitude identifier.).]
Regarding claim 20, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13, 14, and 17 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising providing, over the communications network, the real-time geolocation data to each mobile computing device associated with each preexisting delivery representative for at least a subset of preexisting delivery representatives in the service zone. [See [0053]; (Fig. 2, element 27) Ohtani teaches a position information sensor 27 of a user terminal 20 being provided current position information of the user terminal 20. Ohtani further teaches that the position information sensor 27 may be a GPS receiver used to receive user terminal 20 position information (i.e., providing, over the communications network, the real-time geolocation data to each mobile computing device). Ohtani [0040] further teaches that there are the same number of users (i.e., each preexisting delivery representative), vehicles, and terminals (i.e., each mobile computing device). In other words, every delivery vehicle has an associated delivery driver and user terminal. Since Ohtani teaches providing current GPS position information to every user terminal Ohtani teaches providing, over the communications network, the real-time geolocation data to each mobile computing device associated with each preexisting delivery representative for at least a subset of preexisting delivery representatives in the service zone.]
Regarding claim 22, Ohtani in view of Lievens in view of Ellison in view of Engle discloses all claim 13 limitations. Ohtani further disclose the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein each of the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the first preexisting delivery representative and the previously fixed scheduled travel route of the second preexisting delivery representative is segmented into a plurality of sections [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a start point and an end point [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
the plurality of sections thereby forming a plurality of start points and end points [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40.]
each of the plurality of sections being associated with a transit time to travel a length of each section [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11, a destination point D12, and a hand-over location of the package D40. Ohtani [0094] further teaches estimating a scheduled arrival time at each point along a route based in part on the travel distance and the predicted speed of each vehicle.]
wherein each of the origin location, the dynamic stop location, and the destination correspond to at least one point in the plurality of start points and end points. [See (Fig. 11); [0086-0087] Ohtani teaches the first route and the second route being segmented. For example, Ohtani teaches a first vehicle having a departure point D11 (i.e., the origin location), a destination point D12 (i.e., the delivery location), and a hand-over location of the package D40 (i.e., the dynamic stop location).]
Prior Art
The following art is relevant to the claimed invention but was not used in the art rejections:
Falcone (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0088779) – Food delivery service.
Williams (U.S. Pub. No. 20150046361) – Methods and systems for managing shipped objects.
Wolter (U.S. Pat. No. 10,657,486) – Containers for crowdsourced delivery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628