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 .
This communication is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-23 are currently pending. Claims 6-7 and 13 remain cancelled from the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. Pat. No. 10402775 to Lievens et al. (hereinafter Lievens) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220221867 to TAVEIRA et al. (hereinafter TAVEIRA).
Regarding claim 1, Lievens discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, using at least one processor, a ride request requesting a ride for an item from a starting location to a destination (Coln.1, lines 45-67-Coln.2, lines 1-5, “computer system, according to various embodiments, comprises at least one processor. In particular embodiments, the computer system is configured for: (1) receiving an indication that one or more parcels are scheduled for delivery from a first location to a first attended delivery/pickup location, the one or more parcels having an intended recipient…”), (Coln.8, lines 32-40, FIG. 3, “The system continues, at Step 320, by receiving a request from the user to deliver a parcel to a particular one of the one or more attended delivery/pickup locations (which may, for example, have no formal relationship to the user). In particular embodiments, the request may come from the user after the user reviews a plurality of available attended delivery/pickup locations (see Step 310, above) as part of a checkout process when the user purchases an item from an online retail store.”);
before generating a route to a first drop-off location of the destination:
obtaining, using the at least one processor, credential data corresponding to the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “…a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location. Similarly, the user may be provided with an application on the user's mobile computing device that facilitates identification of the user via near field communications, or one or more bar codes displayed on the screen of the mobile device…”);
verifying, using the at least one processor, the credential data to determine an identity of the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 10-22, “…The other individual may then present the electronic or physical ID card or voucher to a representative at the attended delivery/pickup location to verify that the individual is authorized to pick up the parcel on the intended recipient's behalf. After the representative uses the system to verify the authenticity of the electronic or physical ID card or voucher, the representative may transfer the parcel to the individual.”);
and
generating, using the at least one processor, route data based on the ride request, wherein the route data includes the second drop-off location of the destination (Coln.16, lines 55-67-Coln.17, lines 1-7, FIG. 4. “…the system notifies the intended recipient of the re-routing. The system may notify the user in any suitable manner. For example, the system may notify the intended recipient by sending an electronic message to the intended recipient (e.g., an e-mail, SMS message, text message, etc.), sending a message to a mobile device associated with the intended recipient, facilitating a phone call to notify the intended recipient, updating tracking information for the one or more parcels that is accessible by the intended recipient, etc.).”, wherein the tracking information of the parcels as a result of the re-routing includes the second location/destination, It is also noted that applicant in paragraph 99 equates final destination to a drop-off point for the item), See claim 1 for the summary of the process;
However, Lievens does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item;
TAVEIRA discloses changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item (¶0059, “an alternate drop-off or pick-up location is a location that is different than an originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location but yet sufficiently close to the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location such that both the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location and the alternate drop-off or pick-up location are associated with the same destination…”), (¶0125, “… the autonomous vehicle 300 may determine that the selected drop-off and pick-up location 410 is not viable based at least in part on one or more physical attributes of the first passenger, and may identify one or more viable alternate drop-off locations based at least in part on the one or more physical attributes of the first passenger.”); see also ¶0134, and ¶0274-¶0277.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens to include associating multiple drop-off and pick-up points with the same destination as disclosed by TAVEIRA and be motivated in doing so in order to maximize logistical efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1. Lievens further discloses wherein:
the credential data comprises an identifier indicative of at least one or more of: a person, one or more goods, and an entity (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “…a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location. Similarly, the user may be provided with an application on the user's mobile computing device that facilitates identification of the user via near field communications, or one or more bar codes displayed on the screen of the mobile device…”), (Coln.21, lines 34-53, “The system may, in various embodiments, assign an alias to the user (e.g., such as a unique identifying string of characters, etc.) In other embodiments, the system may be configured to associate a confirmation number with the shipment of the one or more items. In various embodiments, the system may be adapted to require the user to present something other than a proof of identification of the user when the user goes to the attended delivery/pickup location to pick up the one or more items. For example, the system may require the user to present the confirmation number or alias in order to retrieve the one or more items…”); and
verifying the credential data comprises:
verifying one or more of: personal credential data indicative of a person, goods credential data indicative of one or more goods, and entity credential data indicative of an entity (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “… After the representative uses the system to verify the authenticity of the electronic or physical ID card or voucher, the representative may transfer the parcel to the individual.”).
Regarding claim 4, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of to claim 1. Lievens further discloses further comprising:
responsive to verifying the credential data, triggering a start of the ride towards the second drop-off location of the destination based on the route data (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-22, “…Various techniques may be used to facilitate the pickup of parcels or other items from an attended delivery/pickup location. For example, a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location…”), (FIG. 4, Coln.16, lines 27-67-Coln.17, lines -7, “…At Step 440, the system, at least partially in response to determining that the first attended delivery/pickup location does not have capacity to accept the one or more parcels, re-routes the one or more parcels to a second location. Re-routing the one or more parcels may include facilitating delivery of the one or more parcels to a location other than the first attended delivery/pickup location, where the other location is a location determined based at least in part on one or more parcel handing preferences described in the context of Step 430 above…”).
Regarding claim 10, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
Lievens further discloses wherein the credential data is first credential data (Coln.18, lines62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “… a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location…”), the method further comprising:
obtaining second credential data, the second credential data indicative of a second item at or after an end of the ride, wherein the second credential data is different from the first credential data (Coln.17, lines 64-67-Coln.18, lines 1-21, “Attended delivery/pickup locations may be configured, in some embodiments, to facilitate the return of previously purchased items to a retailer for a refund or exchange. For example, in particular embodiments, a representative at an attended delivery/pickup location (and/or a computer system associated with the attended delivery/pickup location) determines whether a particular item may be returned/exchanged and: (1) if the item may not be returned/exchanged, inform the individual attempting to return the item that the item may not be returned/exchanged; or (2) if the item may be returned/exchanged, facilitate the return/exchange of the item in accordance with terms specified by the retailer to which the item is to be returned. In a particular embodiment, the system may be adapted to: (1) read a machine-readable indicia (e.g., a UPC code, a transaction code associated with the sale of the item to the individual attempting to exchange the item, or other suitable item identifier) associated with an item to be returned; and (2) use information derived from the machine-readable indicia to determine whether the item may be returned/exchanged…”, wherein the item to be returned is interpreted as the second item, and the item identifier associated with it is interpreted as the second credential data); and
verifying the second credential data to determine the identity of the second item (Coln.17, lines 64-67-Coln.18, lines 1-21, “…use information derived from the machine-readable indicia to determine whether the item may be returned/exchanged. In particular embodiments, the derived information may include a deadline for returning/exchanging the item. If an item is currently eligible to be returned or exchanged, the system may optionally determine when the user should receive either a refund for the item or a substitute item and provide this information to the user.”).
Regarding claim 20, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
Lievens further discloses wherein the item comprises one or more persons and/or one or more goods (Coln.1, lines 45-67, FIG. 3, “…In particular embodiments, the computer system is configured for: (1) receiving an indication that one or more parcels are scheduled for delivery from a first location to a first attended delivery/pickup location, the one or more parcels having an intended recipient…”).
Regarding claim 21, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 20.
Lievens further discloses wherein the person is a loader of the item or an unloader of the item (Coln.13, lines 60-67-Coln.14, lines 1-2, “… the representatives may: (1) pack the items for shipping; (2) gift wrap the items; (3) facilitate the return of items to a retailer for a refund or exchange (see below); and/or (4) complete any other value-added service.”).
Regarding claim 22, Lievens discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (Coln.1, lines 45, “A computer system, according to various embodiments, comprises at least one processor…”); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Coln.7, lines 11-24, “The data storage device 218 may include a non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium 230 (also known as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or a non-transitory computer-readable medium) on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 222) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein…”):
obtaining a ride request requesting a ride for an item from a starting location to a destination (Coln.1, lines 45-67-Coln.2, lines 1-5, “computer system, according to various embodiments, comprises at least one processor. In particular embodiments, the computer system is configured for: (1) receiving an indication that one or more parcels are scheduled for delivery from a first location to a first attended delivery/pickup location, the one or more parcels having an intended recipient…”), (Coln.8, lines 32-40, FIG. 3, “The system continues, at Step 320, by receiving a request from the user to deliver a parcel to a particular one of the one or more attended delivery/pickup locations (which may, for example, have no formal relationship to the user). In particular embodiments, the request may come from the user after the user reviews a plurality of available attended delivery/pickup locations (see Step 310, above) as part of a checkout process when the user purchases an item from an online retail store.”);
before generating a route to a first drop-off location of the destination:
obtaining, using the at least one processor, credential data corresponding to the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “…a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location. Similarly, the user may be provided with an application on the user's mobile computing device that facilitates identification of the user via near field communications, or one or more bar codes displayed on the screen of the mobile device…”);
verifying, using the at least one processor, the credential data to determine an identity of the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 10-22, “…The other individual may then present the electronic or physical ID card or voucher to a representative at the attended delivery/pickup location to verify that the individual is authorized to pick up the parcel on the intended recipient's behalf. After the representative uses the system to verify the authenticity of the electronic or physical ID card or voucher, the representative may transfer the parcel to the individual.”);
and
generating, using the at least one processor, route data based on the ride request, wherein the route data includes the second drop-off location of the destination (Coln.16, lines 55-67-Coln.17, lines 1-7, FIG. 4. “…the system notifies the intended recipient of the re-routing. The system may notify the user in any suitable manner. For example, the system may notify the intended recipient by sending an electronic message to the intended recipient (e.g., an e-mail, SMS message, text message, etc.), sending a message to a mobile device associated with the intended recipient, facilitating a phone call to notify the intended recipient, updating tracking information for the one or more parcels that is accessible by the intended recipient, etc.).”, wherein the tracking information of the parcels as a result of the re-routing includes the second location/destination, It is also noted that applicant in paragraph 99 equates final destination to a drop-off point for the item), See claim 1 for the summary of the process;
However, Lievens does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item;
TAVEIRA discloses changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item (¶0059, “an alternate drop-off or pick-up location is a location that is different than an originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location but yet sufficiently close to the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location such that both the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location and the alternate drop-off or pick-up location are associated with the same destination…”), (¶0125, “… the autonomous vehicle 300 may determine that the selected drop-off and pick-up location 410 is not viable based at least in part on one or more physical attributes of the first passenger, and may identify one or more viable alternate drop-off locations based at least in part on the one or more physical attributes of the first passenger.”); see also ¶0134, and ¶0274-¶0277.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens to include associating multiple drop-off and pick-up points with the same destination as disclosed by TAVEIRA and be motivated in doing so in order to maximize logistical efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, Lievens discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out operations comprising (Coln.7, lines 11-24, “The data storage device 218 may include a non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium 230 (also known as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or a non-transitory computer-readable medium) on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 222) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein…”):
obtaining a ride request requesting a ride for an item from a starting location to a destination (Coln.1, lines 45-67-Coln.2, lines 1-5, “computer system, according to various embodiments, comprises at least one processor. In particular embodiments, the computer system is configured for: (1) receiving an indication that one or more parcels are scheduled for delivery from a first location to a first attended delivery/pickup location, the one or more parcels having an intended recipient…”), (Coln.8, lines 32-40, FIG. 3, “The system continues, at Step 320, by receiving a request from the user to deliver a parcel to a particular one of the one or more attended delivery/pickup locations (which may, for example, have no formal relationship to the user). In particular embodiments, the request may come from the user after the user reviews a plurality of available attended delivery/pickup locations (see Step 310, above) as part of a checkout process when the user purchases an item from an online retail store.”);
before generating a route to a first drop-off location of the destination:
obtaining, using the at least one processor, credential data corresponding to the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 1-9, “…a user may be provided with an electronic ID card or other device that may be used to quickly identify the individual and any parcels that are to be picked up by the individual at a particular attended delivery/pickup location. Similarly, the user may be provided with an application on the user's mobile computing device that facilitates identification of the user via near field communications, or one or more bar codes displayed on the screen of the mobile device…”);
verifying, using the at least one processor, the credential data to determine an identity of the item (Coln.18, lines 62-67-Coln.19, lines 10-22, “…The other individual may then present the electronic or physical ID card or voucher to a representative at the attended delivery/pickup location to verify that the individual is authorized to pick up the parcel on the intended recipient's behalf. After the representative uses the system to verify the authenticity of the electronic or physical ID card or voucher, the representative may transfer the parcel to the individual.”);
and
generating, using the at least one processor, route data based on the ride request, wherein the route data includes the second drop-off location of the destination (Coln.16, lines 55-67-Coln.17, lines 1-7, FIG. 4. “…the system notifies the intended recipient of the re-routing. The system may notify the user in any suitable manner. For example, the system may notify the intended recipient by sending an electronic message to the intended recipient (e.g., an e-mail, SMS message, text message, etc.), sending a message to a mobile device associated with the intended recipient, facilitating a phone call to notify the intended recipient, updating tracking information for the one or more parcels that is accessible by the intended recipient, etc.).”, wherein the tracking information of the parcels as a result of the re-routing includes the second location/destination, It is also noted that applicant in paragraph 99 equates final destination to a drop-off point for the item), See claim 1 for the summary of the process;
However, Lievens does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item;
TAVEIRA discloses changing the first drop-off location of the destination to a second drop-off location of the destination based on the determined identity of the item (¶0059, “an alternate drop-off or pick-up location is a location that is different than an originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location but yet sufficiently close to the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location such that both the originally scheduled drop-off or pick-up location and the alternate drop-off or pick-up location are associated with the same destination…”), (¶0125, “… the autonomous vehicle 300 may determine that the selected drop-off and pick-up location 410 is not viable based at least in part on one or more physical attributes of the first passenger, and may identify one or more viable alternate drop-off locations based at least in part on the one or more physical attributes of the first passenger.”); see also ¶0134, and ¶0274-¶0277.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens to include associating multiple drop-off and pick-up points with the same destination as disclosed by TAVEIRA and be motivated in doing so in order to maximize logistical efficiency.
Claims 3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. Pat. No. 10402775 to Lievens et al. (hereinafter Lievens) in view of US. PGPub. No. 20220221867 to TAVEIRA et al. (hereinafter TAVEIRA) and further in view of
PGPub. No. 20200372460 to Gutierrez et al. (hereinafter Gutierrez).
Regarding claim 3, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
the method further comprising: providing the route data to cause an autonomous vehicle to operate based on the verifying the credential data.
Gutierrez discloses the method further comprising: providing the route data to cause an autonomous vehicle to operate based on the verifying the credential data (¶0056, “ processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to monitor the integrity or cargo (e.g., cargo 108) being transported by an AV (e.g., autonomous vehicle 102). For example, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to receive a parameter hash from an AV (e.g., parameter hash time 0 226, parameter hash time 1 228, parameter hash time T 230, or the like) via network interconnect circuitry 506 and a network (e.g., network 106). Additionally, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to verify parameters (e.g., parameter states 220) are within range from the parameter hashes. Said differently, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to verify the integrity of cargo 108 from the discretized parameters 222.”), (FIG. 6, steps 606-610, ¶0064-¶0065).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include operation of the autonomous vehicle based on verification of credential data as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to provides an attestation to the state of cargo during transportation and validate transportation of the cargo adhered to specified requirements- Gutierrez ¶0015 in parts.
Regarding claim 5, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
The method of claim 1, wherein verifying the credential data comprises verifying first credential data indicative of the item before or at a start of the ride, and wherein the first credential data comprises at least one of:
health credentials, access credentials, travel credentials, goods credentials, or identification credentials.
Gutierrez discloses wherein verifying the credential data comprises verifying first credential data indicative of the item before or at a start of the ride (¶0019, “…The autonomous vehicle 102, as described further herein, is arranged to provide integrity monitoring an validation for cargo 108 (e.g., documents, goods, persons, etc.,) during transport. The autonomous vehicle 102 can verify the integrity of the cargo 108, at the beginning and end of the transport as well as during the transport and attest to the integrity to a stakeholder 104 via network 106…”), and
wherein the first credential data comprises one or more of: health credentials, access credentials, travel credentials, goods credentials, or identification credentials (¶0024, “autonomous vehicle 102 can attest to the integrity of cargo 108 to stakeholder 104 by identifying parameter states related to transportation of cargo 108, discretize the parameter states, and generate a parameter hash 110 of the discretized parameter states…”), (¶0036, “…authorized access 306 and/or unauthorized access 308 as well as distance 310 can be determined based on parameter states from one or more of sensors 312 (e.g., images sensor 320 and/or proximity sensor 324, etc.). At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can generate parameter hash time 0 326 and send the parameter hash time 0 326 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104, or the like) to attest to the integrity of cargo 304 at initiation of the transport”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include verifying first credential data indicative of the item before or at a start of the ride a as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to attest to the continued integrity of cargo- Gutierrez ¶0024 in parts.
Regarding claim 8, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA and further in view of Gutierrez discloses the method of claim 5.
Lievens further discloses wherein verifying the first credential data comprises verifying at least one of: biometric data, identification data, sensor data, image data, or label data (Coln.13, lines 35-51, “…The second individual may then travel to the particular attended delivery/pickup location and, after providing identification (e.g., in the form of an ID card or a code displayed on the individual's mobile computing device) to a representative of the attended delivery/pickup location, sign the contract. The representative may then verify, in any suitable manner that the contract has been signed by the correct individual…”), (Coln.11, lines 66-67-Coln.12, lines 1-13, “when the retailer sends the item to the user in a parcel, the retailer attaches a shipping label to the parcel that includes the logistics-provider-designated address and user code. The parcel is then shipped to the logistics-provider-designated address by any suitable logistics provider (which may or may not be the particular logistics provider referenced above). Once the particular logistics provider receives the parcel at the logistics-provider-designated address, the particular logistics provider reads the user code and uses the user code to retrieve delivery information associated with the user from a data store, such as a database. The delivery information may include, for example, the user's name, contact information (e.g., e-mail address, cell phone number, etc. . . . ), and the address of the user's preferred attended delivery/pickup location.”)
Regarding claim 9, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA and further in view of Gutierrez discloses the method of claim 5.
Lievens further discloses wherein verifying the first credential data comprises at least one of authenticating an identity of a person, verifying integrity of a good, or verifying origin of a good (Coln.13, lines 35-51, “The second individual may then travel to the particular attended delivery/pickup location and, after providing identification (e.g., in the form of an ID card or a code displayed on the individual's mobile computing device) to a representative of the attended delivery/pickup location, sign the contract. The representative may then verify, in any suitable manner that the contract has been signed by the correct individual. For example, the representative may notarize the document and/or enter information into a data store associated with the system confirming that the contract has been signed by the correct individual. The representative may also create an electronic copy of the document and save the signed document into the system's memory for later retrieval and/or electronic transmission to the first and second individuals. Finally, the system and/or representative may coordinate the return of the original signed document to the first or second individual for their files.”), (Coln.19, lines 10-22, “…The other individual may then present the electronic or physical ID card or voucher to a representative at the attended delivery/pickup location to verify that the individual is authorized to pick up the parcel on the intended recipient's behalf. After the representative uses the system to verify the authenticity of the electronic or physical ID card or voucher, the representative may transfer the parcel to the individual.”), (Coln.19, lines 31-36, “the system may be adapted to create an electronic token to verify that the user's computing device (and, therefore, presumably the user) was present at a location when a parcel was picked up. This may serve as evidence that the parcel was picked up by the intended recipient rather than another individual.”).
Regarding claim 11, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 10.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following
limitation:
further comprising: in response to verifying the second credential data, generating control
data for controlling an autonomous vehicle based on the identity of the second item
Gutierrez discloses further comprising:
in response to verifying the second credential data, generating control data for controlling an autonomous vehicle based on the identity of the second item (¶0035, “At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can receive cargo 304 and determine whether access to the cargo 304 is authorized or unauthorized. For example, this figure depicts an authorized access 306. Authorized access can be determined based on a variety of technologies, such as, for example, biometric (as depicted), facial recognition, keypad, etc. Furthermore, this figure depicts an unauthorized access 308. With some examples, cargo 304 can determine a distance 310 between the unauthorized access 308 and the cargo 304.”), (¶0040, “At time T, autonomous vehicle 302 can identify an authorized access 306 and release cargo 304 responsive to the authorized access 306. Additionally, at time T, autonomous vehicle 302 can again receive parameter states (e.g., parameter states 220, or the like) from sensors 312 and autonomous vehicle 302 can generate parameter hash time T 330 and send the parameter hash time T 330 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104, or the like) to attest to the integrity of cargo 304 at the conclusion of the transport.”), (¶0025, “…. Stakeholder 104 can determine, based on the parameter hashes 110, whether transportation of the cargo 108 adhered to terms of a contract. Further, stakeholder 104 can send control signals (e.g., via network 106, or the like) to autonomous vehicle 102 comprising indication of actions to take response to a determination that a breach in the transportation contract was made…”). See also FIGs 4A and 4B, steps 428 to 432.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include generating a control data for controlling an autonomous vehicle as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to take action when there is a breach in the transportation contract-Gutierrez ¶0025 in parts.
Note: the above motivation applies to claim 12 below as well.
Regarding claim 12, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA and further in view of Gutierrez discloses the method of claim 11.
Gutierrez further discloses wherein generating the control data for controlling the autonomous vehicle comprises generating control data for controlling access to the autonomous vehicle (¶0035, “At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can receive cargo 304 and determine whether access to the cargo 304 is authorized or unauthorized. For example, this figure depicts an authorized access 306. Authorized access can be determined based on a variety of technologies, such as, for example, biometric (as depicted), facial recognition, keypad, etc. Furthermore, this figure depicts an unauthorized access 308. With some examples, cargo 304 can determine a distance 310 between the unauthorized access 308 and the cargo 304.”), (¶0040, “At time T, autonomous vehicle 302 can identify an authorized access 306 and release cargo 304 responsive to the authorized access 306…”), (¶0025, “…. Stakeholder 104 can determine, based on the parameter hashes 110, whether transportation of the cargo 108 adhered to terms of a contract. Further, stakeholder 104 can send control signals (e.g., via network 106, or the like) to autonomous vehicle 102 comprising indication of actions to take response to a determination that a breach in the transportation contract was made…”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens, TAVEIRA, and Gutierrez to include generating a control data for controlling access to an autonomous vehicle as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to take action when there is a breach in the transportation contract-Gutierrez ¶0025 in parts.
Regarding claim 14, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 10.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
further comprising: determining an authentication status based on verifying the second credential data; and providing the authentication status to a device
Gutierrez discloses further comprising: determining an authentication status based on verifying the second credential data (FIG. 4A and 4B, (¶0036, “With some examples, authorized access 306 and/or unauthorized access 308 as well as distance 310 can be determined based on parameter states from one or more of sensors 312 (e.g., images sensor 320 and/or proximity sensor 324, etc.). At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can generate parameter hash time 0 326 and send the parameter hash time 0 326 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104, or the like) to attest to the integrity of cargo 304 at initiation of the transport”.); and
providing the authentication status to a device (¶0036, “…At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can generate parameter hash time 0 326 and send the parameter hash time 0 326 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104, or the like) to attest to the integrity of cargo 304 at initiation of the transport”.), (¶0021, “Stakeholder 104 can be any device operated, owned, controller, and/or provisioned by a stakeholder entity. For example, stakeholder 104 can be a mobile device as depicted. However, stakeholder 104 could be a server, a desktop, a laptop, a virtual machine, a software as a service platform, or the like.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include providing the authentication status to a device as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to attest to the integrity of cargo at initiation of the transport-Gutierrez ¶0036 in parts.
Note: This motivation also applies to claim 17 below.
Regarding claim 15, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
further comprising:
obtaining monitoring data indicative of a monitoring of the item during the ride; determining an item status based on the monitoring data; and
providing the item status to a device.
Gutierrez discloses obtaining monitoring data indicative of a monitoring of the item during the ride; determining an item status based on the monitoring data (¶0015, “the present disclosure provides to attest to the state of cargo during transportation to validate transportation of the cargo adhered to specified requirements…Further, the present disclosure can be provided to monitor, during transit, cargo to determine whether a breach of contract (e.g., time, place, location, route, temperature, cabin access, etc.) occurred”); and
providing the item status to a device (¶0015, “…Additionally, the present disclosure can be provided evidence and/or indication of such a breach to a reporting agency (e.g., contract owner, cargo owner, compliance agency, etc.) responsive to detecting a breach.”), (¶0041, “…As a specific example, system 200 (and particularly AV integrity monitoring device 208 of system 200) can implement logic flow 400a to attest to the integrity of transported cargo. Logic flow 400a includes an intra-transportation attestation loop 400b, which is depicted on FIG 4B…”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include obtaining monitoring data indicative of a monitoring of the item during the ride as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to report any breach in the condition of the cargo such as temperature, location, route etc. to the contract owner or compliance agency-Gutierrez ¶0015 in parts.
Note: The above motivation applies as well to claim 16 below.
Regarding claim 16, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA and further in view of Gutierrez discloses the method of claim 15.
Gutierrez further discloses further comprising:
obtaining item data indicative of an integrity of the item at start of the ride or during the ride and/or at end of the ride (¶0015, “…the present disclosure can be provided to monitor, during transit, cargo to determine whether a breach of contract (e.g., time, place, location, route, temperature, cabin access, etc.) occurred. Additionally, the present disclosure can be provided evidence and/or indication of such a breach to a reporting agency (e.g., contract owner, cargo owner, compliance agency, etc.) responsive to detecting a breach.”);
determining an item status based on the item data or monitoring data (¶0041, “…FIG. 4B. In general, logic flow 400a includes blocks 402 through 408 that correspond to generating a hash to attest to the integrity of cargo at initiation of transportation, intra-transportation attestation loop 400b to generate a hash to attest to the integrity of cargo during transportation of cargo, and blocks 410 through 416 that correspond to generating a hash to attest to the integrity of cargo at the conclusion of transportation.”);
and providing the item status to a device (¶0015, “…Further, the present disclosure can be provided to monitor, during transit, cargo to determine whether a breach of contract (e.g., time, place, location, route, temperature, cabin access, etc.) occurred. Additionally, the present disclosure can be provided evidence and/or indication of such a breach to a reporting agency (e.g., contract owner, cargo owner, compliance agency, etc.) responsive to detecting a breach”), (¶0030, “…However, in general, parameter hashes can be generated at the start and end of a transport as well as at repeated intervals (e.g., on a fixed interval, upon request from a stakeholder, responsive to a condition, or the like)…”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens, TAVEIRA, and Gutierrez to include determining an item status based on the item data or monitoring data as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to report any breach in the condition of the cargo such as temperature, location, route etc. to the contract owner or compliance agency-Gutierrez ¶0015 in parts.
Regarding claim 17, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA and further in view of Gutierrez discloses the method of claim 16.
Gutierrez further discloses further comprising:
determining an item status based on the item data (¶0036, “at time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can receive parameter states (e.g., parameter states 220, or the like) from sensors 312. As noted, parameter states can comprise an indication of any state. For purposes of example, parameter states can include indications of states from sensors 312, which can include a temperature sensor 314, an audio sensor 316 (e.g., microphone, or the like), movement sensor 318 (e.g., speed-sensor, speedometer, GPS tracker, fall effect sensor, inertial measurement unit (IMU), etc.), images sensor 320 (e.g., still camera, video camera, etc.), vehicle cabin sensor 322 (e.g., door lock sensor, seat belt sensor, window position sensor, child safety lock sensor, moon/sunroof sensor, trunk sensor, airbag activation sensor, etc.), proximity sensor 324 (e.g., radar, LIDAR, etc.) With some examples, authorized access 306 and/or unauthorized access 308 as well as distance 310 can be determined based on parameter states from one or more of sensors 312 (e.g., images sensor 320 and/or proximity sensor 324, etc.)…”); and
providing the item status to the device (¶0036, “At time 0, autonomous vehicle 302 can generate parameter hash time 0 326 and send the parameter hash time 0 326 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104, or the like) to attest to the integrity of cargo 304 at initiation of the transport.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens, TAVEIRA, and Gutierrez to include providing the item status to a device as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to attest to the integrity of cargo at initiation of the transport-Gutierrez ¶0036 in parts.
Regarding claim 18, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
further comprising transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle via an interface
Gutierrez discloses transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle via an interface (FIG. 2, “Network interconnect circuitry 216”, (¶0033, “Network interconnect circuitry 216 can include any circuitry arranged to send and/or receive information elements (e.g., data, messages, parameter hashes, etc.) via a network. For example, network interconnect circuitry 216 can send parameter hash time 0 226, parameter hash time 1228, and/or parameter hash time T 230 to a stakeholder (e.g., stakeholder 104) via a network (e.g., network 106)”), (¶0025, “stakeholder 104 can send a control signal to autonomous vehicle 102 comprising an indication to change a destination of the transportation of cargo 108…”), (¶0065, processing circuitry can generate a control signal to include an indication to modify the transportation directives responsive to the deviation between the allowed discretized parameters 512 and the discretized parameters 222. For example, in some instances, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to generate a control signal including an indication to abort or terminate the transportation of cargo 108. As another example, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to generate a control signal including an indication to change a drop or location for cargo 108. With still another example, processing circuitry 502 can execute instructions 508 to generate a control signal including an indication to change a parameter (e.g., maximum speed, temperature, etc.) associated with transportation of the cargo 108.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle via an interface as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to improve safety, efficiency, and decision-making when a breach in the transportation contract is detected.
Regarding claim 19, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Lievens in view of TAVEIRA does not explicitly disclose the following limitation:
Further comprising foregoing transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle based on the verifying the credential data.
Gutierrez discloses foregoing transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle based on the verifying the credential data (FIG. 6, ¶0062-¶0066).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the method of Lievens and TAVEIRA to include foregoing transmitting the route data to an autonomous vehicle based on the verifying the credential as disclosed by Gutierrez and be motivated in doing so in order to conclude the transportation of the cargo when there is no deviation from the credential data/derived parameters-FIG. 6, step 610.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20200049517.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 MUDASIRU K OLAEGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-2082. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI. 7.30AM-5.30PM.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 5712723739. 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.
/MUDASIRU K OLAEGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights