DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 15 & 19 – 23 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 04/04/2025. Claim 22 was amended in a reply filed 10/06/2025. Claims 1 – 15 & 19 – 23 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed after final rejection on 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/06/2025 with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 have been previously considered replied to in full on pp. 2 – 4 of the office action mailed 06/20/2024.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 8 – 9, that “Though cited portions of Torii do disclose “determine[ing] a timing of departing from a standby location... based on... the delivery date/time information...” (paragraph [0069]), this is not the same as initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to the first item based on (a) one or more second constraints that are derived from the identified one or more first constraints as associated with the first request as received with respect to the first item, (b) the one or more first inputs as received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item, and (c) a second request that is (i) received with respect to a second item that is different from the first item and (ii) associated with a second sensor that is different from the first sensor, as encompassed by claim 22. For example, managing “data” such as a “pickup address, delivery address,” etc. for one or more orders (as in Torii), is not the same as initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to a first item based on (a) one or more second constraints that are derived from the identified one or more first constraints as associated with the first request as received with respect to the first item, (b) the one or more first inputs as received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item, and (c) a second request that is (i) received with respect to a second item that is different from the first item and (ii) associated with a second sensor that is different from the first sensor, as in claim 22.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and initially notes that Torii is only relied up for teaching “initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to the first item based on (a) one or more second constraints derived from the identified one or more first constraints.” In particular, High, in para. 0027, discloses that an ordered item can have a constraint indicating a “requested delivery time” (i.e., an identified constraint as associated with the first request), but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a second constraint is derived from the “requested delivery time” constraint i.e., basing a delivery plan off of a second constraint which was derived from the requested delivery time (i.e., first constraint). However, Torii, in paras. 0060 & 0067, teaches a first constraint comprising “delivery date/time information,” which is used in para. 0069 to derive a second constraint (e.g., departure time) as part of a delivery plan for delivering an item on time. In other words, Torii teaches that a delivery plan includes a second constraint comprising a departure time for performing a delivery of an item which is based on a first constraint comprising a delivery time for arriving at a destination for the item. Therefore, Torii teaches wherein a delivery plan is implemented based on a derived departure time in order to arrive at the destination by a requested delivery time. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that High in view of Torii discloses all of the limitations of claim 22.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations “the sensor” in claims 2 – 4 should read, “the first sensor” in order to provide a clear antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 15 & 19 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 15 & 19 – 21 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 22 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 23 is directed to a product. Therefore, claims 1 – 15 & 19 – 23 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 22, & 23 substantially recite receiving a first request with respect to a first item; identifying one or more constraints associated with the first request; receiving one or more first inputs… in relation to the first item; initiating, based on (a) the one or more constraints and (b) the one or more inputs, a first dispatch instance; receiving one or more second inputs; based on the one or more second inputs, adjusting the first dispatch instance (claim 1) / receiving a first request with respect to a first item; identifying one or more first constraints associated with the first request; receiving one or more first inputs… in relation to the first item; initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to the first item based on (a) one or more second constraints that are derived from the identified one or more first constraints as associated with the first request as received with respect to the first item, (b) the one or more first inputs as received … in relation to the first item, and (c) a second request that is (i) received with respect to a second item that is different from the first item …; receiving one or more second inputs; and based on the one or more second inputs, adjusting the first dispatch instance as initiated with respect to the first item (claim 22) / receiving a first request with respect to a first item; identifying one or more first constraints associated with the first request; receiving one or more first inputs… in relation to the first item; initiating, based on (a) one or more second constraints derived from the one or more first constraints and (b) the one or more inputs received… in relation to the first item, a first dispatch instance; receiving one or more second inputs; and based on the one or more second inputs, initiating a second dispatch instance with respect to a second item (claim 23).
The limitations stated above are processes / functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in a commercial interaction. For example, the functions in the context of this claim encompass generating a delivery plan based on constraints and environmental conditions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 22, & 23, as a whole amounts to: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: processing device, a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions, and “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor.” Claim 22 recites the additional elements of: “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item,” “the one or more first inputs as received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item,” and “associated with a second sensor that is different from the first sensor.” Claim 23 recites the additional elements of: non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item,” and “the one or more inputs received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item.”
The additional elements of processing device, a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions, system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, are recited at a high-level of generality (See paras. 16 – 17 of the instant specification discussing the computing device componentry), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor,” “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item,” “the one or more first inputs as received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item,” and “associated with a second sensor that is different from the first sensor,” “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item,” and “the one or more inputs received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item” are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, receiving data from sensors merely generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and likewise does not provide integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figure. 2 showing the additional elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), and (iii) generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B: merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the insignificant extra-solution activity of “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor” and “a second sensor,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, is recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (gathering environmental data) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, paras. 21 & 29 – 31 of instant specification generically disclose the receiving sensor data at a high-level of generality which demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor.”
Therefore, the additional elements of: processing device, a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions, non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, as well as “receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor” and “a second sensor,” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figure. 2 showing all the additional elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2 – 15 & 19 – 21 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements associated with sensors in dependent claims 2 – 4 & 7 – 10 are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, additional elements associated with sensors merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and likewise does not provide integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). The limitations of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, 15, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by High et al. (US 20180195869 A1).
As per claim 1, High discloses a system comprising:
• receiving a first request with respect to a first item (see paras. 0013 – 0014 & 0017 – 0018, “…the order data module 110 may also facilitate fulfillment of orders placed by customers, for example, by generating and transmitting order fulfillment requests to a computing device at a store that has enough stock to fulfill the order” (i.e., receiving a first request with respect to a first item));
• identifying one or more constraints associated with the first request (para. 0015, “…the delivery vehicle may include a refrigeration unit and/or a heating unit to keep items cold or hot according to compliance standards."; 0018, “item data, for example, item name, optimum quality for item, optimum temperature for item, etc.”; 0022, “a pre-defined range of temperature”; 0027, “order data can include… requested delivery time, and the like. The order data may also include, as part of the item data, an optimum level of freshness, a desired level of freshness, an expiration date or time, an optimum temperature, and other data related to desired or required quality of the item.”);
• receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item (para. 0015 – 0016, 0019, 0024, 0036, “…the data sensed by the sensors disposed in the vehicle includes temperature data. If the temperature of the item, the refrigeration unit or heating unit is not within a prescribed range” (i.e., receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item). As per 0039 – 0052 multiple sensors are arranged to identify and monitor each item in a vehicle.);
• initiating, based on (a) the one or more constraints and (b) the one or more inputs, a first dispatch instance (paras. 0003 & 0020 – 0021, “the delivery time for each item may be constantly updated based on at least the sensed data”; 0028, selecting a delivery route based upon “the quality of the first item and the quality of the second item based on the sensed data”; 0029, “the analysis module 130 selects an order for delivery of items based on the freshness or quality of the items. For example, if the quality of the first item is lower than the quality of the second item, then the first item is selected for delivery first.”);
• receiving one or more second inputs (para. 0003, “…it receives the sensed data sensed by the sensors, analyzes order data for each of the two or more items”; para. 0012, “the vehicle monitoring system described herein continually monitors the quality of the items in the vehicle, and determines an order of delivery for the items based at least on the quality of the items” i.e., multiple, iterative sensor inputs are collected; para. 0003 “…it receives the sensed data sensed by the sensors, analyzes order data for each of the two or more items” (i.e., receiving one or more second inputs); 0016, 0019, & 0032, receiving additional sensor data indicating that an item is damaged.); and
• based on the one or more second inputs, adjusting the first dispatch instance (para. 0003 & 0012, “The analysis module, when executed, also selects between the first navigation route and the second navigation route based at least in part on the analysis of the quality of the first item and the second item." (i.e., based on the one or more second inputs, selecting the dispatch instance); paras. 0016, 0032, & 0067, altering a planned delivery route for an item when sensed data indicates an item is damaged.).
As per claim 2, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein the sensor comprises an environment sensor (para. 0019 “The data sensed by the sensors may include location data” (i.e., an environment sensor)).
As per claim 3, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein the sensor comprises a temperature sensor (para. 0019 “The data sensed by the sensors may include . . . temperature data (i.e., a temperature sensor), and the like. The sensors disposed in the vehicle may include . . . a temperature sensor (i.e., a temperature sensor) . . . .”).
As per claim 4, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein the sensor comprises a humidity sensor (para. 0019 “The sensors disposed in the vehicle may include . . . a moisture sensor (i.e., a humidity sensor)”).
As per claim 5, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein identifying one or more constraints comprises computing the one or more constraints based on the first request (para. 0018, para. 0022 “The pre-defined range of temperature may be determined based on the type of item stored in the refrigeration or heating unit (i.e., identifying one or more constraints comprises computing the one or more constraints based on the first request). In one embodiment, the temperature module 150 is included at a computing device (e.g., device 410) or a server (e.g., server 430),” para. 0025).
As per claim 7, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein receiving one or more second inputs comprises receiving one or more second inputs from the first sensor (para. 0028, para. 0051 “The optical sensors can take continuous video or still images at certain time intervals, which show the color or texture of the items over time and the changes in color or texture . . . the computing device may be configured to analyze item freshness levels based on the analysis of sensor data over a predetermined amount of time" (i.e., receiving one or more second inputs comprises receiving one or more second inputs from the first sensor), para. 0052).
As per claim 8, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein receiving one or more second inputs comprises receiving one or more second inputs from a second sensor (para. 0028, para. 0051 “The optical sensors can take continuous video or still images at certain time intervals, which show the color or texture of the items over time and the changes in color or texture . . . the computing device may be configured to analyze item freshness levels based on the analysis of sensor data over a predetermined amount of time" (i.e., receiving one or more second inputs comprises receiving one or more second inputs from a second sensor), para. 0052).
As per claim 9, High teaches the system of claim 8. High further teaches:
• wherein the second sensor is configured in relation to the first item (para. 0003 “The system includes multiple sensors disposed in a vehicle containing two or more items. The sensors are configured to sense data indicative of at least a quality of the two or more items and a current location of the vehicle." (i.e., the second sensor is configured in relation to the first item), para. 0019 “. . . the sensor data module 120 may be configured to manage data sensed by the multiple sensors (e.g., sensors 420) disposed in the vehicle . . . An acoustic sensor may be used to determine if an item is broken or damaged. A thermal imaging sensor may be used to visually determine item temperature.”).
As per claim 10, High teaches the system of claim 8. High further teaches:
• wherein the second sensor is configured in relation to a second item (para. 0003 “The system includes multiple sensors disposed in a vehicle containing two or more items. The sensors are configured to sense data indicative of at least a quality of the two or more items and a current location of the vehicle." (i.e., the second sensor is configured in relation to a second item), para. 0019 “. . . the sensor data module 120 may be configured to manage data sensed by the multiple sensors (e.g., sensors 420) disposed in the vehicle . . . An acoustic sensor may be used to determine if an item is broken or damaged. A thermal imaging sensor may be used to visually determine item temperature.”).
As per claim 11, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein initiating a first dispatch instance comprises determining a rate of change associated with one or more states of the first item (para. 0029 “…the analysis module 130 selects between the first navigation route and the second navigation route based at least in part on the analysis of the quality of the first item and the second item." (i.e., initiating a first dispatch instance), para. 0051 “The color and/or texture of certain perishable items, including, for example, certain meat and fruit (such as pears and apples), will change over time… Thus, the computing device may be configured to analyze item freshness levels based on the analysis of sensor data over a predetermined amount of time" (i.e., determining a rate of change associated with one or more states of the first item)).
As per claim 12, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein initiating a first dispatch instance comprises computing a chronological interval by which the first item is to expire (para. 0027, para. 0029 “The analysis module 130 may retrieve and analyze an expiration date or time for each of the items in the vehicle, and selects between the first navigation route and the second navigation route based at least in part on the expiration date or time." (i.e., initiating a first dispatch instance comprises computing a chronological interval by which the first item is to expire)).
As per claim 13, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance further based on a second request ((para. 0003 “The computing device is configured to execute an analysis module and a routing module. When the routing module is executed it determines a first navigation route to deliver a first item (i.e., initiating the first dispatch instance) of the two or more items . . .,” para. 0016, para. 0018 “. . . the order data module 110 may be configured to manage data, for example, pickup address, delivery address, item or items in the order, customer name, etc., for one or more orders placed by customers." (i.e., based on a second request), para. 0032, para. 0067).
As per claim 15, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance with respect to a first user (para. 0014 “The order may be fulfilled from any source such as a retail store, and picked up by the driver of the delivery vehicle. The order may be delivered to a customer at a delivery address, such as his or her home or office (i.e., initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance with respect to a first user). The order may also be delivered to another store or another location for pick-up by a customer. In an example embodiment, the order may be delivered to the customer's vehicle based on receiving the location of the customer's vehicle from a GPS in the vehicle or a computing device being used by the customer.).
As per claim 19, High teaches the system of claim 1. High further teaches:
• wherein adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a first operation with respect to the first dispatch instance (para. 0029, 0067 “. . . if the sensed data indicates an item is damaged, then an alert is generated indicating that the damaged item should not be delivered, and causes the driverless vehicle to skip delivery of the damaged item.” (i.e., adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a first operation with respect to the first dispatch instance)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20180195869 A1) in view of Lopez et al. (US 20180240181 A1).
As per claim 6, High teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. High further teaches:
• identifying a first constraint (para. 0015 “. . . the delivery vehicle may include a refrigeration unit and/or a heating unit to keep items cold or hot according to compliance standards." (i.e., identifying a first constraint), para. 0018, para. 0022);
High does not explicitly teach identifying a constraint by computing a second constraint based on a first constraint. However, Lopez teaches:
• identifying one or more constraints comprises computing a second constraint based on a first constraint (para. 0063 “For instance, with respect to the type of items 126, whether a food item is served hot or cold may impact the order objective 316 and the fulfillment plans 122. For hot food items (e.g., soup) or cold food items (e.g., a milkshake) (i.e., first constraints), a user 106 would likely prefer to receive the delivery as soon as possible. However, for room temperature food items (i.e., a first constraint), such as a salad, the delivery time (i.e., a second constraint) would likely be less urgent. Moreover, non-food items that are not dependent upon temperature (i.e., a first constraint) and that are not perishable may have a later delivery time (i.e., a second constraint), or a longer delivery window (i.e., computing a second constraint based on a first constraint), which may be acceptable to the user 106.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to modify the invention of High to include identifying a constraint by computing a second constraint based on a first constraint as taught by Lopez. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lopez that doing so would efficiently deliver the items to the user. (See 0013).
As per claim 14, High teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. High further teaches:
• initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance further based on stock availability (para. 0014, para. 0018 “. . . the order data module 110 may also facilitate fulfillment of orders placed by customers, for example, by generating and transmitting order fulfillment requests to a computing device at a store that has enough stock to fulfill the order” (i.e., initiating the first dispatch instance further based on stock availability), para. 0020, para. 0032).
High does not explicitly teach initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance further based on an availability of one or more fulfillment resources. However, Lopez teaches:
• wherein initiating a first dispatch instance comprises initiating the first dispatch instance further based on an availability of one or more fulfillment resources (para. 0046 “After generating multiple fulfillment plans 122 for a particular order 116, a selection module 322 may select one of the multiple fulfillment plans 122. The selected fulfillment plan 324 may be used to execute the delivery of the items 126 included in the order 116 (i.e. initiating the dispatch instance). The selected fulfillment plan 324 may be based at least partly on the order objective 316 determined for that order 116. For instance, the fulfillment plan 122 that is selected may be the fulfillment plan 122 that . . . maximizes the use of various resources (e.g., use of deliverers), or the fulfillment plan 122 that utilizes resources that are currently available (i.e., based on an availability of one or more fulfillment resources),” para. 0050, para. 0067, para. 0085, para. 0086, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to modify the invention of High to include considering the available resources when initiating a dispatch instance as taught by Lopez. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lopez that doing so would efficiently deliver the items to the user. (See 0013).
Claims 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20180195869 A1) in view of Gordon et al. (US 20170320569 A1).
As per claim 20, High teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. High further teaches:
• first dispatch instance is determined to be undeliverable (para. 0029, para. 0067 “. . . if the sensed data indicates an item is damaged, then an alert is generated indicating that the damaged item should not be delivered, and causes the driverless vehicle to skip delivery of the damaged item.” (i.e., first dispatch instance is determined to be undeliverable);
High does not teach adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance. However, Gordon teaches:
• adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance (para. 0062 “. . . the . . . vehicle 102 may automatically reorder delivery items if the alert system 120 indicates loss of such item. For example, if a delivery item is lost and/or damaged . . ., the alert system 120 may identify the lost item and request replacement of such item via the transceiver 124. The transceiver 124 may communicate with a secondary transmitter/receiver device 130, such as a secondary drone 134, to obtain and deliver such item to the delivery location.” (i.e., adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to modify the invention of High to include sending out another item when a first item is determined to be undeliverable as taught by Gordon. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Gordon that doing so would ensure satisfactory delivery of an otherwise undeliverable or damaged item. (See 0062).
As per claim 21, High teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. High further teaches:
• first dispatch instance is determined to be undeliverable (para. 0029, para. 0067 “. . . if the sensed data indicates an item is damaged, then an alert is generated indicating that the damaged item should not be delivered, and causes the driverless vehicle to skip delivery of the damaged item.” (i.e., first dispatch instance is determined to be undeliverable);
High does not teach adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance with respect to a second item. However, Gordon teaches:
• adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance with respect to a second item (para. 0062 “. . . the . . . vehicle 102 may automatically reorder delivery items if the alert system 120 indicates loss of such item. For example, if a delivery item is lost and/or damaged . . ., the alert system 120 may identify the lost item and request replacement of such item via the transceiver 124. The transceiver 124 may communicate with a secondary transmitter/receiver device 130, such as a secondary drone 134, to obtain and deliver such item to the delivery location.” (i.e., adjusting the first dispatch instance comprises initiating a second dispatch instance with respect to a second item).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to modify the invention of High to include sending out another item when a first item is determined to be undeliverable as taught by Gordon. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Gordon that doing so would ensure satisfactory delivery of an otherwise undeliverable or damaged item. (See 0062).
Claims 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 20180195869 A1) in view of Torii et al. (US 20190019141 A1).
As per claim 22, High discloses a method (claim 10 of High) comprising:
• receiving a first request with respect to a first item (paras. 0013 – 0014 & 0017 – 0018, “…the order data module 110 may also facilitate fulfillment of orders placed by customers, for example, by generating and transmitting order fulfillment requests to a computing device at a store that has enough stock to fulfill the order” (i.e., receiving a first request with respect to a first item));
• identifying one or more first constraints associated with the first request (para. 0018, “item data, for example, item name, optimum quality for item, optimum temperature for item, etc.”; 0022, “a pre-defined range of temperature”; 0027, “order data can include… requested delivery time, and the like. The order data may also include, as part of the item data, an optimum level of freshness, a desired level of freshness, an expiration date or time, an optimum temperature, and other data related to desired or required quality of the item.”);
• receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item (para. 0015 – 0016, 0019, 0024, 0036, “…the data sensed by the sensors disposed in the vehicle includes temperature data. If the temperature of the item, the refrigeration unit or heating unit is not within a prescribed range” (i.e., receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item). As per 0039 – 0052 multiple sensors are arranged to identify and monitor each item in a vehicle.);
• initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to the first item based on … (b) the one or more first inputs as received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item (paras. 0020 – 0021, “the delivery time for each item may be constantly updated based on at least the sensed data”; 0028, selecting a delivery route based upon “the quality of the first item and the quality of the second item based on the sensed data”; 0029, “the analysis module 130 selects an order for delivery of items based on the freshness or quality of the items. For example, if the quality of the first item is lower than the quality of the second item, then the first item is selected for delivery first.”);
• and (c) a second request that is (i) received with respect to a second item that is different from the first item and (ii) associated with a second sensor that is different from the first sensor (paras. 0003, 0012, 0018, 0020 – 0021, 0028 – 0029, & 0031, each item is transported along a route that is initiated based upon a comparison of sensed data associated with multiple items to be delivered to multiple destinations associated with multiple customer orders. As per paras. 0012 & 0039 – 0052, each item is monitored by an array of multiple sensors to determine an order in which the items will be delivered. In other words, a delivery plan/route (delivery sequence for the transported items) for each item is determined based upon other transported items associated with other customer orders, which are monitored by a plurality of sensors disposed inside the delivery vehicle.);
Regarding the following limitation,
• initiating a first dispatch instance with respect to the first item based on (a) one or more second constraints that are derived from the identified one or more first constraints as associated with the first request as received with respect to the first item,
High, in para. 0027, discloses that a requested order for a first item comprises a first constraint indicating a “requested delivery time.” To the extent to which High does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein the delivery time “first constraint” is used to determine a departure time (i.e., second constraint) as part of a delivery plan, Torii, in at least para. 0060, 0067, & esp. 0069, teaches that a departure time is derived from a delivery time constraint comprising “delivery date/time information” indicating when the delivery should take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Torii in the method of High with the motivation to enable to enable a user to reliably receive a delivered package, as evidenced by Torii, in para. 0005.
High further discloses:
• receiving one or more second inputs (para. 0012, “the vehicle monitoring system described herein continually monitors the quality of the items in the vehicle, and determines an order of delivery for the items based at least on the quality of the items” i.e., multiple, iterative sensor inputs are collected; para. 0003 “…it receives the sensed data sensed by the sensors, analyzes order data for each of the two or more items” (i.e., receiving one or more second inputs); 0016, 0019, & 0032, receiving additional sensor data indicating that an item is damaged.); and
• based on the one or more second inputs, adjusting the first dispatch instance as initiated with respect to the first item (para. 0003, “The analysis module, when executed, also selects between the first navigation route and the second navigation route based at least in part on the analysis of the quality of the first item and the second item." (i.e., based on the one or more second inputs, selecting the dispatch instance). Also see paras. 0016, 0032, & 0067, noting adjusting a planned delivery route (i.e., dispatch instance) for an item when sensed data indicates an item is damaged.).
As per claim 23, High discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations (paras. 0005 & 0060) comprising:
• receiving a first request with respect to a first item (paras. 0013 – 0014 & 0017 – 0018, “…the order data module 110 may also facilitate fulfillment of orders placed by customers, for example, by generating and transmitting order fulfillment requests to a computing device at a store that has enough stock to fulfill the order” (i.e., receiving a first request with respect to a first item));
• identifying one or more first constraints associated with the first request (para. 0015, “…the delivery vehicle may include a refrigeration unit and/or a heating unit to keep items cold or hot according to compliance standards."; 0018, “item data, for example, item name, optimum quality for item, optimum temperature for item, etc.”; 0022, “a pre-defined range of temperature”; 0027, “order data can include… requested delivery time, and the like. The order data may also include, as part of the item data, an optimum level of freshness, a desired level of freshness, an expiration date or time, an optimum temperature, and other data related to desired or required quality of the item.”);
• receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item (para. 0015 – 0016, 0019, 0024, 0036, “…the data sensed by the sensors disposed in the vehicle includes temperature data. If the temperature of the item, the refrigeration unit or heating unit is not within a prescribed range” (i.e., receiving one or more first inputs from a first sensor configured in relation to the first item). As per 0039 – 0052 multiple sensors are arranged to identify and monitor each item in a vehicle.);
• initiating, based on… and (b) the one or more inputs received from the first sensor as configured in relation to the first item, a first dispatch instance (paras. 0020 – 0021, “the delivery time for each item may be constantly updated based on at least the sensed data”; 0028, selecting a delivery route based upon “the quality of the first item and the quality of the second item based on the sensed data”; 0029, “the analysis module 130 selects an order for delivery of items based on the freshness or quality of the items. For example, if the quality of the first item is lower than the quality of the second item, then the first item is selected for delivery first.” Also 0003 & 0031.);
Regarding the following limitation,
• initiating, based on (a) one or more second constraints derived from the one or more first constraints… a first dispatch instance,
High, in para. 0027, discloses that an ordered item can have a constraint indicating a “requested delivery time.” To the extent to which High does not appear to explicitly discloses wherein the delivery time constrain is used to determine a departure time as part of a delivery plan, Torii, in at least para. 0060, 0067, & esp. 0069, teaches that a departure time constraint is derived from a first constraint comprising “delivery date/time information” indicating when the delivery should take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Torii in the method of High with the motivation to enable to enable a user to reliably receive a delivered package, as evidenced by Torii, in para. 0005.
High further discloses:
• receiving one or more second inputs (para. 0012, “the vehicle monitoring system described herein continually monitors the quality of the items in the vehicle, and determines an order of delivery for the items based at least on the quality of the items” i.e., multiple, iterative sensor inputs are collected; para. 0003 “…it receives the sensed data sensed by the sensors, analyzes order data for each of the two or more items” (i.e., receiving one or more second inputs); 0016, 0019, & 0032, receiving additional sensor data indicating that an item is damaged.); and
• based on the one or more second inputs, initiating a second dispatch instance with respect to a second item (para. 0003, “The analysis module, when executed, also selects between the first navigation route and the second navigation route based at least in part on the analysis of the quality of the first item and the second item." (i.e., based on the one or more second inputs, selecting the dispatch instance); paras. 0016, 0032, & 0067, altering a planned delivery route for an item when sensed data indicates an item is damaged.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628