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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on October 1, 2025. Claims 1, 8, and 21 have been amended. Claim 23 has been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, Claims 1-13, 21-22, and 24-25 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on October 1, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Regarding the statement that Loubriel (US20220027847A1) does not teach “using a dynamically updated, vehicle-level parts inventory together with real-time geolocation to both form a subset of parts-bearing vehicles and select the closest from that subset” (Remarks, Pg. 10, in reference to amended claim 1) / “the claimed integrated sequence that uses both dynamic vehicle-level parts inventory and real-time geolocation to (a) form the parts-bearing subset and (b) select the closest vehicle” (Remarks, Pg. 11, in reference to amended claim 8) / “an autonomous verify-before-dispatch flow driven by dynamic, vehicle-level inventories” (Remarks, Pg. 12, in reference to amended claim 21), the examiner respectfully notes that Loubriel was not relied upon to teach the step of selecting the closest vehicle, and that one cannot show nonobviousness by addressing references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references (MPEP 2145(IV)). Regarding the formation of a subset of vehicles based on a dynamic inventory and location information, Loubriel discloses that an appropriate delivery vehicle is chosen from a subset of vehicles based on current location and the inventory of each vehicle (Paragraph 0113, “In instances in which the destination location may be within a geographical area assigned to two or more delivery vehicles 50 (e.g., within the vehicle service area assigned to two or more delivery vehicles), the determination of the appropriate delivery vehicle 50 to deliver the one or more items/products to the destination location may additionally be based at least in part on…(1) the current location of each of the delivery vehicles 50 along the respective delivery routes in light of the destination location, (2) the inventory level of the one or more item/product types in each of the plurality of delivery vehicles 50 traversing the plurality of service routes”). Loubriel further discloses that the inventory level is tracked (Paragraph 0019, “…the carrier may track the inventory levels of each of the items/products in each of the delivery vehicles”) which indicates that the inventory is updated for each vehicle delivery vehicle. Loubriel also discloses that the delivery vehicle may be autonomous (Paragraph 0053, “In various embodiments, a vehicle 50 (e.g., delivery vehicle) may be a manned or an unmanned…”).
Regarding the statement that Hafeez (US9454157B1) does not tie into vehicle-stored parts nor teaches “the claimed verification operation as a distinct step following selection” (Remarks, Pg. 11, in reference to amended claim 1) / “explicit verification step following selection” (Remarks, Pg. 12, in reference to amended claim 8) / “disclose the claim's explicit verification operation as a distinct step” (Remarks, Pg. 13, in reference to amended claim 21), the examiner respectfully notes that Hafeez was not relied upon to teach determination of vehicle-stored parts, and that nonobviousness cannot be shown by addressing references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references (MPEP 2145(IV)). Regarding the claimed verification step, the closest support found from the instant specification was found in Paragraph 0052 which recites “The delivery vehicle 312, may operate using an internal power source that must be replenished periodically. It is envisioned in some embodiments that the delivery vehicle 312 may operate as an autonomous automobile, autonomous drone (such as a mobile drone delivery device), or other autonomous vehicle capable of transporting one or more items from a staging location to the first location 314 or a construction location or an upgrade location”, and therefore as currently claimed and in light of the specification, the claimed verification step is interpreted by the examiner as verifying that the delivery vehicle is capable of fulfilling the delivery. Hafeez teaches verification that the delivery vehicle is capable of fulfilling the delivery (Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as having enough battery charge to complete a mission).
Regarding the statement that Kempf (US20190122178A1) does not cure “the inventory and verification gaps” (Remarks, Pg. 11, in reference to amended claim 1) / “the missing inventory-driven subset + closest-selection flow or the verification operation” (Remarks, Pg. 12, in reference to amended claim 8) / “the inventory-driven subset selection or the explicit verification step” (Remarks, Pg. 13, in reference to amended claim 21), the examiner respectfully notes that Kempf was not relied upon to teach forming a subset nor the verification step, and that nonobviousness cannot be shown by addressing references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references (MPEP 2145(IV)).
Regarding the statements that the motivation to modify the Loubriel invention in view of the Hafeez reference (Remarks, Pg. 12) and Kempf reference (Remarks, Pg. 11) is not sufficient, the examiner respectfully disagrees as MPEP 2143 (III) notes that a proper rationale for a conclusion of obviousness is the use of a known technique to improve similar inventions.
Regarding the Hafeez reference, Loubriel relates to a network of delivery vehicles. Hafeez also relates to a network of delivery vehicles with the additional features of determining a closest delivery vehicle and verifying that a given delivery vehicle is capable of fulfilling a mission. It is believed that it would be obvious to incorporate these additional features of Hafeez into Loubriel because it would allow the Loubriel invention to implement a set selection process when there are multiple vehicles to choose from.
Regarding the Kempf reference, Loubriel relates to delivery of parts. Kempf also relates to delivery of parts with the additional feature of including tools or equipment usable for repair, upgrade, or construction work as parts. It is believed that it would be obvious to incorporate this additional feature of Kempf into Loubriel, because it allows the Loubriel invention to expand the deliverable parts.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, the previous 103 rejection is maintained. The claim mapping has been updated to reflect the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 21. Furthermore, a new objection has been raised in view of the amended claims as shown below.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1, as amended, recites “a request to deliver one or more network-specific for [[the]]a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure of the wireless communications network to the first location”. This appears to be a typographical error and should read as “a request to deliver one or more network-specific parts for [[the]]a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure of the wireless communications network to the first location”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel (US20220027847A1; hereinafter Loubriel) in view of Hafeez et al. (US9454157B1; hereinafter Hafeez) and further in view of Kempf (US20190122178A1; hereinafter Kempf).
Regarding Claim 1 (independent), Loubriel discloses a network of delivery vehicles preloaded with requestable parts (Abstract, “An unallocated item/product inventory is maintained in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles traversing service routes within a delivery service area. Upon receipt of an order for delivery of an item/product that may be selected from the item/product inventory maintained within a delivery vehicle and that is to be delivered to a destination location”; Paragraph 0064 describes “items/products” as comprising any physical object, such as “parts”) which includes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, perform a method (Paragraph 0024, “instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium to perform certain steps or operation”) comprising:
receiving, from a first location, by way of a wireless communications network, a set of coordinates corresponding to the first location and a request to deliver one or more [parts] to the first location (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0026 describes one or more wireless communications networks (“network 130”); Paragraph 0112 describes receiving a request for delivery, wherein the request includes a destination location for a delivery vehicle (“carrier system 100 receives the order information/data from the vendor computing entity 120. As previously indicated, the order information/data may comprise…the destination location”) which is reasonably indicative to a set of coordinates corresponding to a first location for delivery);
determining, by way of the wireless communications network, one or more delivery vehicles that have stored within each one of the one or more delivery vehicles, the one or more requested [parts], wherein the determination includes querying a fleet-wide inventory that is dynamically updated with vehicle-specific stored parts and real-time vehicle location data (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0113 describes determining an appropriate delivery vehicle based on querying inventory levels in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles and real-time geolocation of each delivery vehicle (“the current location of each of the delivery vehicles 50 along the respective delivery routes in light of the destination location… the inventory level of the one or more item/product types in each of the plurality of delivery vehicles 50”); Paragraph 0019 describes the fleet-wide inventory as being updated to allow tracking (“...updated information regarding the availability of delivery services may be provided to the vendor. For example, the carrier may track the inventory levels of each of the items/products in each of the delivery vehicles”));
communicating, to the first delivery vehicle by way of the wireless communications network, instructions to autonomously deliver the one or more requested parts to the first location (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0114, “Upon identifying the appropriate delivery vehicle 50…the carrier system 100 may transmit instructions to the delivery vehicle 50 (e.g., to a mobile device 110 operated by the delivery vehicle driver) to deliver the one or more items/products to the destination location”; Paragraph 0053 describes the vehicle as being configured to be autonomously operated (“In various embodiments, a vehicle 50 (e.g., delivery vehicle) may be a manned or an unmanned…”)); and
receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, an indication that the first delivery vehicle has delivered the one or more requested parts to the first location (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0116, “the carrier system 100 may receive delivery information/data indicating that the one or more items/products have been delivered to the destination location from the delivery vehicle 50”).
However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose determining, by way of the wireless communications network, a first delivery vehicle of the one or more delivery vehicles that is autonomously operable, electrically powered, and closest to the first location, based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data; verifying that the first delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Examiner notes that the verifying step is being interpreted to broadly include selecting a delivery vehicle capable of fulfilling the delivery, which is consistent with its closest support from the instant specification which appears to be Paragraph 0052).
Nevertheless, Hafeez teaches transmitting mission directives to one or more UAVs (Abstract), wherein the mission directives include delivery operation (Column 6, Lines 18-21, “The destination action can be delivering a package to an individual”) comprising:
determining, by way of the wireless communications network, a first delivery vehicle of the one or more delivery vehicles that is autonomously operable, electrically powered, and closest to the first location, based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data (Column 6, Lines 21-32 describe determining a UAV that is closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data (“The system retrieves a list of available UAVs within x meters of the destination...The system then chooses UAV closest to the destination from the list of available UAVs 408”); Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”); Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle).
verifying that the first delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered and determining whether the UAV has enough battery charge to complete a mission (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”) which is reasonably indicative of determining flight-readiness; Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle; Figure 1 shows UAVs 300 as being untethered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Hafeez by including features that allow selecting a UAV that is autonomously operable, electrically powered and closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a network of delivery vehicles and Hafeez also relates to a network of delivery vehicles. In Hafeez, an autonomous delivery vehicle is selected based on having sufficient electrical power and proximity to a delivery location. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Loubriel for the benefit of implementing a selection process when there is a plurality of delivery vehicles (Hafeez, Column 6, Lines 21-32).
However, Loubriel as currently modified still does not explicitly disclose the delivery of network-specific parts for a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure of the wireless communications network (Examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted to broadly comprise parts that may reasonably be used for performing repair, upgrade or construction work of network infrastructure, which is consistent with its usage in the claims and instant specification (see Paragraph 0016)). Nevertheless, Kempf teaches autonomous delivery to work sites (Abstract) comprising:
[the delivery of] network-specific [parts] for a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure of the wireless communications network (Paragraph 0025 describes delivering job resources (“The embodiments utilize an autonomous or remotely guided vehicle to deliver a telepresence device that will operate locally to carry out a job at the direction and control of a skilled technician…job resources can be tools that are affixed or provided to the telepresence device.…with tools specific to the jobs required that day and any replacement parts or equipment that might be needed for the jobs”); Paragraph 0028 describes the autonomous delivery vehicle as comprising various vehicles, such as drones to perform delivery in a timely manner (“other types of autonomous or remotely guided vehicles such as drones, cars or similar vehicles can be used…for the delivery of the resources and telepresence device in a timely manner”) which reasonably indicates time-sensitivity of delivery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow delivery of network-specific parts to a work site. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the parts include tools or equipment that may reasonably be used for performing repair, upgrade or construction work of network infrastructure. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the types of parts that may be delivered (Kempf, Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 2, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 1. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is a repair site for a piece of network infrastructure. Nevertheless, Kempf further teaches:
wherein the first location is a repair site for a piece of network infrastructure (Paragraph 0022 describes a designated delivery location as being at a job site for pieces of network infrastructure where maintenance is performed (“maintenance and replacement of equipment (e.g., network equipment) at remote locations”), which is reasonably comparable to a site for repairing a piece of network infrastructure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow the delivery location to be a repair site for a piece of network infrastructure. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the delivery of parts extends to remote locations where pieces of network infrastructure is located. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the deliverable sites (Kempf, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 3, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 1. Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is an upgrade site for a piece of network infrastructure. Nevertheless, Kempf further teaches:
wherein the first location is an upgrade site for a piece of network infrastructure (Paragraph 0022 describes a designated delivery location as being at a job site for pieces of network infrastructure where replacement of equipment is performed (“maintenance and replacement of equipment (e.g., network equipment) at remote locations”), which is reasonably comparable to a site for upgrading a piece of network infrastructure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow designating the delivery location as being an upgrade site for a piece of network infrastructure. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the delivery of parts extends to remote locations where pieces of network infrastructure is located. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the deliverable sites (Kempf, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 4, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 1. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is a construction site for a piece of network infrastructure. Nevertheless, Kempf further teaches:
wherein the first location is a construction site for a piece of network infrastructure (Paragraph 0022 describes a designated delivery location as being at a job site for pieces of network infrastructure where replacement of equipment is performed (“maintenance and replacement of equipment (e.g., network equipment) at remote locations”), which is reasonably comparable to a construction site for a piece of network infrastructure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow designating the delivery location as being a construction site for a piece of network infrastructure. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the delivery of parts extends to remote locations where pieces of network infrastructure is located. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the deliverable sites (Kempf, Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 7, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 1. Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first delivery vehicle is an electrically powered autonomous vehicle. Nevertheless, Hafeez further teaches:
wherein the first delivery vehicle is an electrically powered autonomous vehicle (Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”); Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Hafeez by including features that allow the delivery vehicle to be an electrically powered autonomous vehicle. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a network of delivery vehicles and Hafeez also relates to a network of delivery vehicles. In Hafeez, the delivery vehicles are electrically powered autonomous vehicles. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of reducing the amount of personnel needed for performing a delivery operation.
Regarding Claim 8 (independent), Loubriel discloses a network of delivery vehicles preloaded with requestable parts (Abstract, “An unallocated item/product inventory is maintained in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles traversing service routes within a delivery service area. Upon receipt of an order for delivery of an item/product that may be selected from the item/product inventory maintained within a delivery vehicle and that is to be delivered to a destination location”; Paragraph 0064 describes “items/products” as comprising any physical object, such as “parts”) comprising:
receiving, from a first location, by way of a wireless communications network, a set of coordinates corresponding to the first location and a request to deliver one or more [parts] to the first location (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0026 describes one or more wireless communications networks (“network 130”); Paragraph 0112 describes receiving a request for delivery, wherein the request includes a destination location for a delivery vehicle (“carrier system 100 receives the order information/data from the vendor computing entity 120. As previously indicated, the order information/data may comprise…the destination location”) which is reasonably indicative to a set of coordinates corresponding to a first location for delivery);
determining, by way of the wireless communications network, one or more autonomous delivery vehicles that have stored within each one of the one or more autonomous delivery vehicles, the one or more requested parts, wherein the determination includes querying a dynamically updated inventory system that tracks vehicle-specific stored parts and real-time geolocation of each delivery vehicle (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0113 describes determining an appropriate delivery vehicle based on querying inventory levels in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles and real-time geolocation of each delivery vehicle (“the current location of each of the delivery vehicles 50 along the respective delivery routes in light of the destination location… the inventory level of the one or more item/product types in each of the plurality of delivery vehicles 50”); Paragraph 0019 describes the fleet-wide inventory as being updated to allow tracking (“...updated information regarding the availability of delivery services may be provided to the vendor. For example, the carrier may track the inventory levels of each of the items/products in each of the delivery vehicles”); Paragraph 0053 describes the vehicle as being configured to be autonomously operated (“In various embodiments, a vehicle 50 (e.g., delivery vehicle) may be a manned or an unmanned…”));
communicating, to the first autonomous delivery vehicle by way of the wireless communications network, instructions to autonomously deliver the one or more requested parts to the first location (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0114, “Upon identifying the appropriate delivery vehicle 50…the carrier system 100 may transmit instructions to the delivery vehicle 50 (e.g., to a mobile device 110 operated by the delivery vehicle driver) to deliver the one or more items/products to the destination location”; Paragraph 0053 describes the vehicle as being configured to be autonomously operated (“In various embodiments, a vehicle 50 (e.g., delivery vehicle) may be a manned or an unmanned…”)); and
receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, an indication that the first autonomous delivery vehicle has delivered the one or more requested parts to the first location (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0116, “the carrier system 100 may receive delivery information/data indicating that the one or more items/products have been delivered to the destination location from the delivery vehicle 50”).
However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose determining, by way of the wireless communications network, a first autonomous delivery vehicle of the one or more autonomous delivery vehicles, wherein the first autonomous delivery vehicle is an electrically powered, untethered vehicle capable of autonomous operation, confirmed to be flight-ready, and is a closest delivery vehicle relative to the first location based on proximity and real-time location data; verifying that the first delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Examiner notes that the verifying step is being interpreted to broadly include selecting a delivery vehicle capable of fulfilling the delivery, which is consistent with its closest support from the instant specification which appears to be Paragraph 0052).
Nevertheless, Hafeez teaches a system and method for transmitting mission directives to one or more UAVs (Abstract) wherein the mission directives include delivery (Column 6, Lines 18-21, “The destination action can be delivering a package to an individual”) comprising:
determining, by way of the wireless communications network, a first autonomous delivery vehicle of the one or more autonomous delivery vehicles, wherein the first autonomous delivery vehicle is an electrically powered, untethered vehicle capable of autonomous operation, confirmed to be flight-ready, and is a closest delivery vehicle relative to the first location based on proximity and real-time location data (Column 6, Lines 21-32 describe determining a UAV that is closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data (“The system retrieves a list of available UAVs within x meters of the destination...The system then chooses UAV closest to the destination from the list of available UAVs 408”); Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered and determining whether the UAV has enough battery charge to complete a mission (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”) which is reasonably indicative of determining flight-readiness; Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle; Figure 1 shows UAVs 300 as being untethered).
verifying that the first autonomous delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered and determining whether the UAV has enough battery charge to complete a mission (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”) which is reasonably indicative of determining flight-readiness; Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle; Figure 1 shows UAVs 300 as being untethered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Hafeez by including features that allow selecting an autonomously operable untethered UAV that is electrically powered and closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a network of delivery vehicles and Hafeez also relates to a network of delivery vehicles. In Hafeez, an autonomously operable delivery vehicle is selected based on having sufficient electrical power and proximity to a delivery location. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Loubriel for the benefit of implementing a selection process when there are a plurality of delivery vehicles (Hafeez, Column 6, Lines 21-32).
However, Loubriel as currently modified still does not explicitly disclose the delivery of network-specific parts for time-sensitive network infrastructure repair, upgrade, or construction (Examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted to broadly comprise parts that may reasonably be used for performing repair, upgrade or construction work of network infrastructure, which is consistent with its usage in the claims and instant specification (see Paragraph 0016)).
Nevertheless, Kempf teaches autonomous delivery to work sites (Abstract) comprising:
[the delivery of] network-specific parts for time-sensitive network infrastructure repair, upgrade, or construction (Paragraph 0025 describes delivering job resources (“The embodiments utilize an autonomous or remotely guided vehicle to deliver a telepresence device that will operate locally to carry out a job at the direction and control of a skilled technician…job resources can be tools that are affixed or provided to the telepresence device.…with tools specific to the jobs required that day and any replacement parts or equipment that might be needed for the jobs”); Paragraph 0028 describes the autonomous delivery vehicle as comprising various vehicles, such as drones in a timely manner (“other types of autonomous or remotely guided vehicles such as drones, cars or similar vehicles can be used…for the delivery of the resources and telepresence device in a timely manner”) which reasonably indicates time-sensitivity of delivery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow delivery of network-specific parts to a work site. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the parts include tools or equipment that may reasonably be used for performing time-sensitive network infrastructure repair, upgrade or construction. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the types of parts that may be delivered (Kempf, Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 9, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 8. Loubriel as currently modified teaches autonomous delivery vehicles (Paragraph 0053 describes the vehicle as being configured to be autonomously operated (“In various embodiments, a vehicle 50 (e.g., delivery vehicle) may be a manned or an unmanned…”)). Loubriel further discloses:
determines the one or more [delivery vehicles] that have the one or more parts stored within by querying an inventory which lists what items are stored on each [delivery vehicle] within a geographic area (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0113 describes determining an appropriate delivery vehicle based on querying inventory levels in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles (“the inventory level of the one or more item/product types in each of the plurality of delivery vehicles 50”) within a geographic area (“In instances in which the destination location may be within a geographical area assigned to two or more delivery vehicles 50”)).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, and Kennedy (US20080017709A1; hereinafter Kennedy).
Regarding Claims 5, and 12, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Loubriel teaches Claims 1 and 8, respectively. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is a repair site in response to a natural disaster.
Nevertheless, Kennedy teaches an inventory management system for distributing assets (Paragraph 0006) comprising:
wherein the first location is a repair site in response to a natural disaster (Paragraph 0035 describes a first location that is a repair site in response to a natural disaster (“a repair truck in need of a transformer (tagged item 110-114 in this example) to repair a down power grid, can quickly acquire the transformer from a nearby repair truck having surplus transformers”); Figure 3 and Paragraph 0056 describes a first location is a deliverable location (“In step 350, if an asset is available, that asset can be redeployed from a current location to the location of the mobile entity in need. The replacement asset can be procured from a supply depot or from another mobile entity having a surplus asset or having a lesser need for the asset”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kennedy by including features that allow the first location to be a repair site in response to a natural disaster. Particularly because Loubriel relates to inventory management for a network of supply vehicles and Kennedy also relates to inventory management for a network of supply vehicles. In Kennedy, a destination for requested parts includes a repair site in response to a natural disaster. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the deliverable sites (Kennedy, Paragraph 0035).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, and Zwillinger (US9412280B1; hereinafter Zwillinger).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Loubriel teaches Claims 1 and 8, respectively. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is determined using a global positioning system associated with a user device at the first location.
Nevertheless, Zwillinger teaches an autonomous delivery system using UAVs (Column 1, Lines 6-11, “delivery of packages via unmanned aerial vehicles at a precise desired delivery location”) comprising:
wherein the first location is determined using a global positioning system associated with a user device at the first location (Figure 7 and Column 9, Lines 3-21 describe the delivery location as being determined using a GPS associated with a user device (“In a preferred embodiment, the precise delivery app associates the geographical coordinates of the location of the smartphone 200 with the unique identity 320 of the unique identifier 110 and instructs the first processor of the smartphone 200 to send these data to the precise delivery system server 302 over the network 314“)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Zwillinger by including features that allow the first location to be determined using a GPS associated with a user device. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a drone delivery system (Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Zwillinger also relates to a drone delivery system. In Zwillinger, the destination is determined based on a GPS associated with a user device. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of allowing precise delivery (Zwillinger, Column 9, Lines 3-21).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf and Priest (US20170358215A1; hereinafter Priest).
Regarding Claim 10, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 8. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communications network receives, from the first autonomous delivery vehicle, an updated location of the first autonomous delivery vehicle.
Nevertheless, Priest teaches data management of information relating to delivery drones (Abstract) that are autonomously operated (Paragraph 0055, “The UAV can be configured for autonomous operation through the air traffic control system”)) comprising:
wherein the wireless communications network receives, from the first autonomous delivery vehicle, an updated location of the first autonomous delivery vehicle (Paragraphs 0055-0056 describe receiving updated locations of UAVs (“The maintained data can include location information received and updated periodically from each of the plurality of UAVs, and wherein the location information is correlated to coordinates and altitude”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Priest by including features that allow receiving an updated location of the autonomous delivery vehicle. Particularly because Loubriel relates to drone delivery (Loubriel, Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Priest also relates to drone delivery. In Priest, the drone delivery system includes features for receiving updated locations of the delivery vehicle. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature for the benefit of real-time tracking of the autonomous delivery vehicle to ensure precise delivery to the location of the recipient.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, and Romaniuk (US20230094255A1, filed on September 27, 2021; hereinafter Romaniuk).
Regarding Claim 11, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 8. Loubriel does not explicitly disclose receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle.
Nevertheless, Romaniuk teaches a plurality of status updates relating to an autonomous delivery drone (Paragraph 0011, “This disclosure further contemplates a system and a method for presenting status updates associated with an autonomous delivery mechanism on a delivery user interface”; Paragraph 0067, “the autonomous delivery mechanisms 114a may include one or more autonomous vehicles, one or more autonomous drone”) comprising
receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle (Paragraph 0012 describes receiving a plurality of updates that include an indication when objects are retrieved from the delivery vehicle after an indication that the delivery vehicle has reached a delivery destination (“For example, the disclosed system may present status updates when the status of the autonomous delivery mechanism changes…In some examples, the disclosed system may present…a sixth status update that indicates the autonomous delivery mechanism is has reached the delivery location…an eighth status update that indicates the ordered objects are retrieved from the autonomous delivery mechanism”) which is reasonably indicative of a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Romaniuk by including features that allow receiving a plurality of updates, including a second indication that alerts when one or more parts have been removed from the delivery vehicle. Particularly because Loubriel relates to drone delivery (Loubriel, Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Romaniuk also relates to drone delivery. In Romaniuk, the drone delivery system includes features for receiving a plurality of status updates. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature for the benefit of improving user experience (Romaniuk, Paragraph 0014).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, and Romaniuk.
Regarding Claim 21 (independent), Loubriel discloses a network of delivery vehicles preloaded with requestable parts (Abstract, “An unallocated item/product inventory is maintained in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles traversing service routes within a delivery service area. Upon receipt of an order for delivery of an item/product that may be selected from the item/product inventory maintained within a delivery vehicle and that is to be delivered to a destination location”; Paragraph 0064 describes “items/products” as comprising any physical object, such as “parts”) comprising:
receiving, from a first location, by way of a wireless communications network, a set of coordinates corresponding to the first location and a request to deliver one or more [parts] at the first location (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0026 describes one or more wireless communications networks (“network 130”); Paragraph 0112 describes receiving a request for delivery, wherein the request includes a destination location for a delivery vehicle (“carrier system 100 receives the order information/data from the vendor computing entity 120. As previously indicated, the order information/data may comprise…the destination location”) which is reasonably indicative to a set of coordinates corresponding to a first location for delivery);
querying, by way of the wireless communications network, a fleet-wide inventory database that is dynamically updated with vehicle-specific part inventories and real-time geolocations (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0113 describes determining an appropriate delivery vehicle based on querying inventory levels in each of a plurality of delivery vehicles and real-time geolocation of each delivery vehicle (“the current location of each of the delivery vehicles 50 along the respective delivery routes in light of the destination location… the inventory level of the one or more item/product types in each of the plurality of delivery vehicles 50”); Paragraph 0019 describes the fleet-wide inventory as being updated to allow tracking (“...updated information regarding the availability of delivery services may be provided to the vendor. For example, the carrier may track the inventory levels of each of the items/products in each of the delivery vehicles”));
identifying, from among the fleet of delivery vehicles, a subset of vehicles that have stored therein at least one of the one or more requested parts (Paragraph 0110 describes identifying which vehicles have the one or more requested parts (“Upon identifying one or more vehicle 50 service areas for delivering the one or more items/products to the destination location, the carrier system 100 may determine whether any of the one or more delivery vehicles 50 traversing the one or more vehicle service areas have an item/product inventory stored therein that may be utilized to satisfy the item/product order”));
transmitting, to the first delivery vehicle by way of the wireless communications network, instructions to autonomously deliver the one or more requested parts to the first location (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0114, “Upon identifying the appropriate delivery vehicle 50…the carrier system 100 may transmit instructions to the delivery vehicle 50 (e.g., to a mobile device 110 operated by the delivery vehicle driver) to deliver the one or more items/products to the destination location”);
receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, a delivery confirmation from the first delivery vehicle that the one or more requested parts were delivered (Figure 7 and Paragraph 0116, “the carrier system 100 may receive delivery information/data indicating that the one or more items/products have been delivered to the destination location from the delivery vehicle 50”).
However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose determining, from the identified subset, a first delivery vehicle that is closest to the first location based on real-time geolocation data; verifying that the first delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Examiner notes that the verifying step is being interpreted to broadly include selecting a delivery vehicle capable of fulfilling the delivery, which is consistent with its closest support from the instant specification which appears to be Paragraph 0052).
Nevertheless, Hafeez teaches a system and method for transmitting mission directives to one or more UAVs (Abstract), wherein the mission directives include delivery (Column 6, Lines 18-21, “The destination action can be delivering a package to an individual”) comprising:
determining, from the identified subset, a first delivery vehicle that is closest to the first location based on real-time geolocation data (Column 6, Lines 21-32 describe determining a UAV that is closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data (“The system retrieves a list of available UAVs within x meters of the destination...The system then chooses UAV closest to the destination from the list of available UAVs 408”));
verifying that the first delivery vehicle is electrically powered, untethered, and capable of autonomous operation (Column 6, Lines 36-38 describe the UAV as being electrically powered and determining whether the UAV has enough battery charge to complete a mission (“If the chosen UAV does have a great enough battery charge to complete the mission then the system assigns the mission to the chosen UAV…”) which is reasonably indicative of determining flight-readiness; Column 9, Lines 2-4 describe the UAVs as being configured to independently execute instructions and missions (“The UAV 300 has a central processing unit 304 which executes the instructions and missions transferred to the UAV 300”) which is reasonably indicative of an autonomously operable vehicle; Figure 1 shows UAVs 300 as being untethered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Hafeez by including features that allow selecting an autonomously operable UAV that is electrically powered and closest to a first location based on proximity and real-time vehicle location data. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a network of delivery vehicles and Hafeez also relates to a network of delivery vehicles. In Hafeez, an autonomously operable delivery vehicle is selected based on having sufficient electrical power and proximity to a delivery location. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Loubriel for the benefit of implementing a selection process when there are a plurality of delivery vehicles (Hafeez, Column 6, Lines 21-32).
However, Loubriel as currently modified still does not explicitly disclose the delivery of network-specific parts for a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure equipment (Examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted to broadly comprise parts that may reasonably be used for performing repair, upgrade or construction work of network infrastructure, which is consistent with its usage in the claims and instant specification (see Paragraph 0016)).
Nevertheless, Kempf teaches autonomous delivery to work sites (Abstract) comprising:
[the delivery of] network-specific parts for a time-sensitive repair, upgrade, or construction of network infrastructure equipment (Paragraph 0025 describes delivering job resources (“The embodiments utilize an autonomous or remotely guided vehicle to deliver a telepresence device that will operate locally to carry out a job at the direction and control of a skilled technician…job resources can be tools that are affixed or provided to the telepresence device.…with tools specific to the jobs required that day and any replacement parts or equipment that might be needed for the jobs”); Paragraph 0028 describes the autonomous delivery vehicle as comprising various vehicles, such as drones to perform delivery in a timely manner (“other types of autonomous or remotely guided vehicles such as drones, cars or similar vehicles can be used…for the delivery of the resources and telepresence device in a timely manner”) which reasonably indicates time-sensitivity of delivery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kempf by including features that allow delivery of network-specific parts to a work site. Particularly because Loubriel relates to delivery of parts and Kempf also relates to delivery of parts. In Kempf, the parts include tools or equipment that may reasonably be used for performing repair, upgrade or construction work of network infrastructure. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the types of parts that may be delivered (Loubriel, Paragraph 0025).
However, Loubriel as currently modified still does not explicitly disclose receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle.
Nevertheless, Romaniuk teaches a plurality of status updates relating to an autonomous delivery drone (Paragraph 0011, “This disclosure further contemplates a system and a method for presenting status updates associated with an autonomous delivery mechanism on a delivery user interface”; Paragraph 0067, “the autonomous delivery mechanisms 114a may include one or more autonomous vehicles, one or more autonomous drone”) comprising
receiving, by way of the wireless communications network, a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle (Paragraph 0012 describes receiving a plurality of updates that include an indication when objects are retrieved from the delivery vehicle after an indication that the delivery vehicle has reached a delivery destination (“For example, the disclosed system may present status updates when the status of the autonomous delivery mechanism changes…In some examples, the disclosed system may present…a sixth status update that indicates the autonomous delivery mechanism is has reached the delivery location…an eighth status update that indicates the ordered objects are retrieved from the autonomous delivery mechanism”) which is reasonably indicative of a second indication that the one or more parts have been removed from the first autonomous delivery vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Romaniuk by including features that allow receiving a plurality of updates, including a second indication that alerts when one or more parts have been removed from the delivery vehicle. Particularly because Loubriel relates to drone delivery (Loubriel, Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Romaniuk also relates to drone delivery. In Romaniuk, the drone delivery system includes features for receiving a plurality of status updates. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature for the benefit of improving user experience (Romaniuk, Paragraph 0014).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, Romaniuk, and Priest.
Regarding Claim 22, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 21. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communications network receives, from the first autonomous delivery vehicle, an updated location of the first autonomous delivery vehicle.
Nevertheless, Priest teaches data management of information relating to delivery drones (Abstract) that are autonomously operated (Paragraph 0055, “The UAV can be configured for autonomous operation through the air traffic control system”)) comprising:
wherein the wireless communications network receives, from the first autonomous delivery vehicle, an updated location of the first autonomous delivery vehicle (Paragraphs 0055-0056 describe receiving updated locations of UAVs (“The maintained data can include location information received and updated periodically from each of the plurality of UAVs, and wherein the location information is correlated to coordinates and altitude”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Priest by including features that allow receiving an updated location of the autonomous delivery vehicle. Particularly because Loubriel relates to drone delivery (Loubriel, Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Priest also relates to drone delivery. In Priest, the drone delivery system includes features for receiving updated locations of the delivery vehicle. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature for the benefit of real-time tracking of the autonomous delivery vehicle to ensure precise delivery to the location of the recipient.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, Romaniuk, and Kennedy.
Regarding Claim 24, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 21. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is a repair site in response to a natural disaster.
Nevertheless, Kennedy teaches an inventory management system for distributing assets (Paragraph 0006) comprising:
wherein the first location is a repair site in response to a natural disaster (Paragraph 0035 describes a first location that is a repair site in response to a natural disaster (“a repair truck in need of a transformer (tagged item 110-114 in this example) to repair a down power grid, can quickly acquire the transformer from a nearby repair truck having surplus transformers”); Figure 3 and Paragraph 0056 describes a first location is a deliverable location (“In step 350, if an asset is available, that asset can be redeployed from a current location to the location of the mobile entity in need. The replacement asset can be procured from a supply depot or from another mobile entity having a surplus asset or having a lesser need for the asset”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Kennedy by including features that allow the first location to be a repair site in response to a natural disaster. Particularly because Loubriel relates to inventory management for a network of supply vehicles and Kennedy also relates to inventory management for a network of supply vehicles. In Kennedy, a destination for requested parts includes a repair site in response to a natural disaster. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of expanding the deliverable sites (Kennedy, Paragraph 0035).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loubriel in view of Hafeez, Kempf, Romaniuk, and Zwillinger.
Regarding Claim 25, Loubriel as currently modified teaches Claim 21. However, Loubriel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first location is determined using a global positioning system associated with a user device at the first location.
Nevertheless, Zwillinger teaches an autonomous delivery system using UAVs (Column 1, Lines 6-11, “delivery of packages via unmanned aerial vehicles at a precise desired delivery location”) comprising:
wherein the first location is determined using a global positioning system associated with a user device at the first location (Figure 7 and Column 9, Lines 3-21 describe the delivery location as being determined using a GPS associated with a user device (“In a preferred embodiment, the precise delivery app associates the geographical coordinates of the location of the smartphone 200 with the unique identity 320 of the unique identifier 110 and instructs the first processor of the smartphone 200 to send these data to the precise delivery system server 302 over the network 314“)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Loubriel invention to incorporate the teachings of Zwillinger by including features that allow the first location to be determined using a GPS associated with a user device. Particularly because Loubriel relates to a drone delivery system (Paragraph 0053 describes the delivery vehicles as comprising drones) and Zwillinger also relates to a drone delivery system. In Zwillinger, the destination is determined based on a GPS associated with a user device. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Loubriel for the benefit of allowing precise delivery (Zwillinger, Column 9, Lines 3-21).
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669