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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 24 September 2025. Claims 1-29, 31, 34, 38-39, 41-43 have been canceled. Claims 30, 40, have been amended. Claim 44 and 45 are new. Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 45 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 30-36, 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte (US 2018/0130017 A1) in view of Priest (US 2018/0350243 A1) and further in view of Barrett et al. (US 2014/0121891 A1).
Claim 30. Gupte discloses
an equipment server comprising processing circuitry, encrypted messages may be sent from one of the components of the Pick-up and Delivery System to a server acting as a hub (P 0137),
to transmit and to receive a message in a common data format, a Pod may send a Message related to a Delivery to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including information required to complete the delivery such as Delivery Address and Delivery Information, the UAV replies to the Message with an acceptance flag or an unchanged copy of the information from the Message implying acceptance of proposed information or it may respond with new information including, the Pod and UAV will, in this case, need to share at least one common protocol or communication technology (P 0165) wherein the vehicle may be an unmanned terrestrial vehicle (P 0179) a Message is transmitted from at least one of a Pod and a Third-Party Logistics company to a server and then on to the Unmanned Terrestrial Vehicle that is seeking the Pod for delivery or pick up (P 0229) the common protocol being necessary for the Pod and vehicle to connect to a local network including the address of a server to communicate with as an alternate data source (as Pick-up/Delivery Connection Information) (P 0230) once a common protocol is negotiated, the vehicle uses the protocol to a locate Pod and move to it, and if unable to locate the Pod, using the protocol, it may send a Message suggesting a different protocol and again, as described under “Message based Negotiation” using iterative messages can negotiate a different protocol and then use the new protocol to locate Pod (P 0236) if decrypted information is recognized by Pod i.e. it is in the correct format and data can be validated by simple rules (e.g. phone number retrieved is a valid phone number), authentication is considered successful (P 0257) It is clear that a common protocol must be used for communication with and between the remote user, the pod and the vehicle,
to and from a plurality of device servers …, included in Message Encryption/Decryption Information are means of locating additional such Servers and authentication information if required to obtain additional Message Encryption/Decryption Information (P 0073) the Pod UID, or its representation (graphic, numeric or any other form of representation) may be stored as required by various embodiments in a plurality of servers (P 0099) a Pick-up/Delivery Agent can include any combination of one or more of a Human Agent and an Unmanned Terrestrial Vehicle enabled with devices and/or computing systems to interact with other components of a Pick-up/Delivery Agent (P 0120), and
the message includes first information for identification of the device, a message from a sending device includes unique ID which helps a receiving device identify the sending device (P 0078) every pod has a unique ID (P 0099) a message can identify a pod in a first message and identify a pick-up/delivery agent in a second message (P 0145) wherein the pick-up/delivery agent is an unmanned terrestrial vehicle (P 0147) the pod and the vehicle communicate with each other over a network (P 0230), and
third information representing a process related to the message, a first message is received at a first computing device associated with a Pick-up/Delivery agent identifying a Pod; and a second message is received at a second computing device associated with the Pod identifying the Pick-up/Delivery agent or information associated with Pick-up/Delivery agent's device such that the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027),
to select a piece of equipment from a plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility, a first message is received at a first computing device associated with a Pick-up/Delivery agent identifying a Pod (P 0027),
by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information, the messages transmitted from the Pod to the UAV and from the UAV to the Pod include information describing directions of signals and identification of the signals used to determine the Pod’s and UAV’s position (P 0233) a pod intermittently calculates its position and information, including the Pod's own position as well as relative locations, types (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc.), directions of the other signals (relative to that of the Pod) and identification of the signals (e.g. the SSID or device name) is transmitted to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle as a Message (P 0233) using the Short-Range Positioning System, UAV may use the Doppler principle to determine direction to or away from Pod and thence, by triangulation, location, of the source of a signal in order to more accurately determine location of Pod (P 0235) The message direction is described as the direction of the signals transmitting the message, but not whether the direction is from a device side to an equipment side and from the equipment side to the device side,
to control a piece of equipment in the facility on the basis of the message received, the pod Computing System controls at least a Pod Locking Mechanism and, also controls a Pod Electro-Mechanical System (P 0093) and any other such mechanism that attaches the Pod Receptacle to the Pod (P 0105) and the vehicle is remotely controlled (P 0132) through messages over the network connection (P 0182) or the vehicle may require no human control and may use a Package Homing device (P 0183) wherein control is communicated through messages via the server (P 0250) The pod in Gupte is analogous to the claimed equipment, and as noted above, messages between the remote operator, the vehicle and the pod are communicated via messages through a network of servers, and each of the vehicle and the pod are controlled to execute a process.
Gupte does not disclose wherein each of the device servers communicates with and controls at least one device, in a facility, as disclosed in the claims. However, Gupte discloses the vehicle is remotely controlled (P 0132) through messages over the network connection (P 0182) or the vehicle may require no human control and may use a Package Homing device (P 0183). The vehicle in Gupte is analogous to the claimed device. In the same field of invention, Priest discloses a plurality of servers each are configured to communicate with a plurality of UAVs in a geographic or zone coverage (P 0108). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gupte and Priest, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein each of the device servers communicates with and controls at least one device, in a facility with the teachings of Gupte with the motivation to provide a more effective method to concurrently control a plurality of UAV in a given region (Priest: P 0003, 0004).
Gupte does not disclose at least one device server of the plurality of device servers communicates with a device that is controlled by the device server, using a data format different from the common data format, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Barrett discloses a write signal is formatted in a mobile device format, an API is configured to convert the write signal from the mobile device format to an automobile-specific format appropriate for a particular make and model of automobile (P 0011) a data signal is converted from the automobile-specific format to a general mobile device format defined by an API and wirelessly transmitted to a specific automobile-agnostic mobile device (P 0012) signals are transmitted to/from the automobile to an abstraction device to/from the mobile device (P 0031) the abstraction device includes one or more controllers configured to receive one or more data signals from the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus (P 0044). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gupte, Priest and Barrett, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine at least one device server of the plurality of device servers communicates with a device that is controlled by the device server, using a data format different from the common data format with the teachings of Gupte and Priest with the motivation to provide a more effective method to concurrently control a plurality of UAV in a given region (Priest: P 0003, 0004) by providing a more flexible system to ensure compatibility of communications between components comprising different software languages, data formats, protocols, addressing schemes etc. (Barrett: P 0006).
Claim 31. Canceled.
Claim 32. Gupte, Priest and Barrett disclose the equipment server according to claim 30, and Gupte discloses wherein the processing circuitry causes an access control apparatus that is the piece of equipment in the facility to authenticate the device on the basis of the first information, the pick-up/delivery agent contacts an identified pod, a message can identify a pod in a first message and identify a pick-up/delivery agent in a second message (P 0145) wherein the pick-up/delivery agent is an unmanned terrestrial vehicle (P 0147) a message is sent from a pick-up/delivery agent to a pod such that message from another different pick-up delivery agent does not unlock the pod (P 0148) the pod and the vehicle communicate with each other over a network (P 0230).
Claim 33. Gupte, Priest and Barrett disclose the equipment server according to claim 30, and Gupte discloses wherein the device is a robot or a mobility device, the invention relates to the field of robotics and more specifically to systems and methods to enable delivery and pick up of packages using pods and unmanned vehicles (P 0002) the pick-up/delivery agent is an unmanned terrestrial vehicle (P 0147).
Claim 34. Canceled.
Claim 35. Gupte, Priest and Barrett t disclose the equipment server according to claim 30, and Gupte discloses wherein the processing circuitry causes the piece of equipment in the facility to start operation if the third information represents a request to start the operation of the piece of equipment, the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027).
Claim 36. Gupte, Priest and Barrett disclose the equipment server according to claim 30, and Gupte discloses wherein the processing circuitry changes an operating state of the piece of equipment in the facility if the third information represents a request to change the operating state of the piece of equipment, the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027).
Claims 38-39. Canceled.
Claim(s) 40 is/are directed to communication system claim(s) similar to the equipment server claim(s) of Claim(s) 30 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claims 41-43 Canceled.
Claim 44 is directed to an equipment server claim similar to the equipment server claim of Claim 30 with the exception that Claim 30 includes the limitation “select a piece of equipment from the plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device”. Therefore, Claim 44 is rejected with the same rationale as Claim 1.
Claim 45. Gupte, Priest and Barrett disclose the equipment server according to claim 44, and Gupte discloses wherein the processing circuitry selects the piece of equipment to be controlled from among the plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility, on the basis of combination of the third information, the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027), and the position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information, the messages transmitted from the Pod to the UAV and from the UAV to the Pod include information describing directions of signals and identification of the signals used to determine the Pod’s and UAV’s position (P 0233) a pod intermittently calculates its position and information, including the Pod's own position as well as relative locations, types (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc.), directions of the other signals (relative to that of the Pod) and identification of the signals (e.g. the SSID or device name) is transmitted to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle as a Message (P 0233) using the Short-Range Positioning System, UAV may use the Doppler principle to determine direction to or away from Pod and thence, by triangulation, location, of the source of a signal in order to more accurately determine location of Pod (P 0235) The message direction is described as the direction of the signals transmitting the message, but not whether the direction is from a device side to an equipment side and from the equipment side to the device side.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte (US 2018/0130017 A1) in view of Priest (US 2018/0350243 A1) and Barrett et al. (US 2014/0121891 A1) and further in view of Farris et al. (US 2016/0033966 A1).
Claim 37. Gupte, Priest and Barrett disclose the equipment server according to claim 30, and Gupte further discloses wherein the device is a first device that is controlled by a first device server among the plurality of device servers and moves in the facility, the vehicle may move on the ground (P 0121) to a pod (P 0128). But Gupte does not disclose the processing circuitry registers, in an elevator that is the piece of equipment in the facility, a hall call calling a first car of the elevator if the third information represents the hall call, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Farris discloses a drone may deliver and/or pick-up parcel on a top portion of secure parcel box, wherein an elevator mechanism may raise or lower the parcel as needed to the top portion of secure parcel box (P 0049). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gupte, Priest, Barrett and Farris, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine the processing circuitry registers, in an elevator that is the piece of equipment in the facility, a hall call calling a first car of the elevator if the third information represents the hall call with the teachings of Gupte, Priest and Barrett with the motivation to provide a flexible implementation to the delivery system of Gupte so as to more effectively meet an expanded set of needs for a plurality of users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 24 September 2025, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejections in view of co-pending application 17/870,860 of uncanceled Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40 of the instant application have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant argues:
the amended claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims [of co-pending application 17/870,860], for example, as discussed in further detail below. Therefore, it is respectfully requested the double patenting rejection be withdrawn.
The amended Independent Claims 1, 51, 67, 70 of co-pending application 17/870,860 include limitations directed to a message type representing a transmission direction of the message, the message type including a present categorical value representing the transmission direction from a device side to an equipment side and a value representing a transmission direction from the equipment side to the device side, and each of the plurality of the preset categorical values does not individually identify a transmitter and a receiver of the message.
The amended claims of the instant application do not include these limitations. Furthermore, the amended claims of the instant application include the following limitations that are not present in the independent claims of co-pending application 17/870,860:
the message includes first information for identification of the device and
third information representing a process related to the message;
to select a piece of equipment from a plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information;
using a data format different from the common data format
While limitations 1, 2 and 3 above are included in depend claims 47, 42 and 48, respectively in co-pending application 17/870,860, because the independent claims of the instant application are patentably distinct, the inclusion of limitations from depend claims 47, 42 and 48, respectively in co-pending application 17/870,860 to not render the instant independent claims patentably indistinct. The limitation “using a data format different from the common data format” is not present in the claims of co-pending application 17/870,860. Therefore, the non-statutory double patenting claim is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
As discussed during the interview, the cited references fail to teach or suggest transmitting and receiving a message including first information for identification of the device and third information representing a process related to the message and selecting a piece of equipment from a plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information.
In the interview summary record for the interview conducted 28 August 2025, the examiner recorded:
The examiner pointed out the amendments submitted by Applicant's representative were potentially double-patenting in view of co-pending application 17870860, which is being represented by a colleague at the same law firm. Applicant's representative said he would review the co-pending application.
The amendments to Claim 30 include limitations from the claims filed 10 November 2025 for co-pending application 17/870,860 by the same applicant and inventors as follows:
the message includes first information for identification of the device (17/870,860, Claim 47),
third information representing a process related to the message (17/870,860, Claim 42),
to select a piece of equipment from a plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information (17/870,860, Claim 48).
Gupte discloses:
the message includes first information for identification of the device, a message from a sending device includes unique ID which helps a receiving device identify the sending device (P 0078) every pod has a unique ID (P 0099) a message can identify a pod in a first message and identify a pick-up/delivery agent in a second message (P 0145) wherein the pick-up/delivery agent is an unmanned terrestrial vehicle (P 0147) the pod and the vehicle communicate with each other over a network (P 0230), and
third information representing a process related to the message, a first message is received at a first computing device associated with a Pick-up/Delivery agent identifying a Pod; and a second message is received at a second computing device associated with the Pod identifying the Pick-up/Delivery agent or information associated with Pick-up/Delivery agent's device such that the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027),
to select a piece of equipment from a plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility, a first message is received at a first computing device associated with a Pick-up/Delivery agent identifying a Pod (P 0027),
by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information, the messages transmitted from the Pod to the UAV and from the UAV to the Pod include information describing directions of signals and identification of the signals used to determine the Pod’s and UAV’s position (P 0233) a pod intermittently calculates its position and information, including the Pod's own position as well as relative locations, types (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc.), directions of the other signals (relative to that of the Pod) and identification of the signals (e.g. the SSID or device name) is transmitted to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle as a Message (P 0233) using the Short-Range Positioning System, UAV may use the Doppler principle to determine direction to or away from Pod and thence, by triangulation, location, of the source of a signal in order to more accurately determine location of Pod (P 0235) The message direction is described as the direction of the signals transmitting the message, but not whether the direction is from a device side to an equipment side and from the equipment side to the device side.
Regarding new Claim 44, Claim 44 is directed to an equipment server claim similar to the equipment server claim of Claim 30 with the exception that Claim 30 includes the limitation “select a piece of equipment from the plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility by comparing respective positions corresponding to the plurality of pieces of equipment with position information of the device”. Therefore, Claim 44 is rejected with the same rationale as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 45, Gupte discloses wherein the processing circuitry selects the piece of equipment to be controlled from among the plurality of pieces of equipment in the facility, on the basis of combination of the third information, the Pick-up/Delivery agent contacts and unlocks the identified Pod based on at least a part of the first message (e.g., an unlock code that forms part of the first message, and completes the designated action of pick up and/or delivery of the package when at least a part of the second message is complementary to information in the first message (P 0027), and the position information of the device which is stored in association with information on the device identified by the first information, the messages transmitted from the Pod to the UAV and from the UAV to the Pod include information describing directions of signals and identification of the signals used to determine the Pod’s and UAV’s position (P 0233) a pod intermittently calculates its position and information, including the Pod's own position as well as relative locations, types (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc.), directions of the other signals (relative to that of the Pod) and identification of the signals (e.g. the SSID or device name) is transmitted to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle as a Message (P 0233) using the Short-Range Positioning System, UAV may use the Doppler principle to determine direction to or away from Pod and thence, by triangulation, location, of the source of a signal in order to more accurately determine location of Pod (P 0235) The message direction is described as the direction of the signals transmitting the message, but not whether the direction is from a device side to an equipment side and from the equipment side to the device side.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2177 12/6/2025
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights