DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/109,196 filed on 02/13/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 18/109,196 filed 02/13/2023 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/404,941, filed 09/08/2022.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed October 06, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1 and 18, and did not cancel any claim. No new claims were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to claim 18 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 18 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed October 06, 2025, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “that the rejections under 35 USC § 112 are obviated by the amendments herein in which the phrase “more efficiently” has been removed from independent claim 18.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 10/06/2025, page 8]
In response, the Examiner agrees. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
9. Applicant submits “that these rejections appear to be inconsistent with the guidance provided in the Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner for Patents Charles Kim to Technology Center 3600 on August 4, 2025 (the “August 4, 2025 Memorandum”).” In particular, Applicant argues that “the outstanding rejections of the independent claims (i) fail to analyze the each independent claim as a whole.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 10/06/2025, page 8]
Applicant argues that the §101 rejections are inconsistent with the guidance provided in the Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner for Patents Charles Kim to Technology Center 3600 on August 4, 2025 (the “August 4, 2025 Memorandum”), and further submits that the rejection fails to analyze each independent claim as whole. In response, it is respectfully maintained that the eligibility analysis applied to the claims in this application has not been oversimplified and is fully consistent with the guidance of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum as well as procedures set forth in MPEP 2106. The §101 rejection follows the step-by-step framework required under MPEP 2106.04(a)-(d) and MPEP 2106.05. Specifically, under Step 2A Prong One, the rejection explicitly identifies, in bold text, the specific limitations that are determined to recite the abstract idea (i.e., the certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes). The rejection also identifies the additional elements, in plain text, which were separately analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application or amounts to significantly more.
The Office action further provides detailed reasoning explaining why the claim elements – both individually and as an ordered combination – do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the claims as whole do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The Office action therefore demonstrates that the claims were evaluated as whole, consistent with both the MPEP and current USPTO guidance. Applicant’s argument fails to acknowledge, discuss, or point out any alleged errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2A Prong One analysis that provides reasons why each of the specifically addressed limitations is interpreted as setting forth or describing activity falling under one or more of the abstract idea groupings. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it does not identify any specific error in the analysis or demonstrate that the rejection failed to consider the claims in its entirety.
10. Applicant submits “the outstanding rejections of the independent claims…(ii) fail to consider the extent to which the claim covers a particular way to achieve a desired outcome.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 10/06/2025, pages 8-9] More specifically, Applicant submits “that, by ignoring the linking/interacting language of claim 1 and attempting to cast the claim as merely claiming a desired outcome, the Office Action fails to properly consider the extent to which independent claim 1 covers a particular way (e.g., parallel processing through distinct computational pathways that simultaneously route high fidelity data to one engine while routing low fidelity data to two other components, generating telemetry from one pathway and predictions from another, and then coordinating these outputs through a data mesh for unified display in a plurality of tabs of a user interface) of achieving a desired outcome. When the extent of this “particular way” of claim 1 is properly considered, it is clear that the Office Action’s alleged judicial exception is provides improvements in the functioning of a computer (e.g., the “backend”), and renders the claim patent eligible” [Remarks at page 12].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response it is maintained that the eligibility analysis applied to independent claim 1 properly considers the limitations as a whole. The full limitations of independent claim 1 have been properly considered in the Office action, exactly as claimed and without oversimplification. The claim does not recite an improvement in computer functionality or any other technological field beyond the abstract idea itself.
Specifically, the parallel routing of high and low fidelity data is a conventional technique for handling multiple data streams in computing systems and does not itself improve computer functionality. The generation of telemetry and predictive outputs is a routine function of software does not constitute a technical improvement merely because it is performed by a prescriptive action decision engine. Coordination of these outputs through a data mesh and displaying them in multimer user interface tabs is also a conventional application of generic computer technology Taken together, these steps merely organize and present information using standard computing components, and nothing in the claim improves the operation of the computer, enhances processing speed, reduces memory requirements, or otherwise provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, these features do not amount to a “particular way” of achieving a desired outcome sufficient to render the claims patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101. the claimed limitations, individually and as an ordered combination, are directed to abstract ideas within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings, and their implementation on generic computing components merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the §101 rejection is maintained.
Last, in response to applicant’s argument that the Office Action’s division of “the claims into an alleged abstract idea and additional elements leaves much of the claim language unaddressed,” it is noted that contrary to Applicant’s assertions, all of the alleged unaddressed claim language highlighted in bold capital letters by the Applicant (see Remarks at pages 10-11) was explicitly addressed in the Office Action (See Office Action, dated 07/08/2025, pages 12-19).
11. Applicant submits “the outstanding rejections of the independent claims… (iii) oversimplifies the claim limitations and expands the application of the “apply it” consideration.” .” [Applicant’s Remarks, 10/06/2025, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is maintained that the §101 analysis applied to the claims does not oversimplify the limitations nor does it expand the application of the “apply it” consideration beyond what is authorized under MPEP 2106. The rejection strictly follows the guidance of MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.04(d) in evaluating each claim limitation individually and as an ordered combination, and in determining whether the claims as whole is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, each claim limitation of independent claim 1, including the recited linking and interacting elements, has been addressed in the rejection. The Office action identifies which aspects recite an abstract idea and which elements are additional, providing a rationale for how the claim as whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “apply it” consideration was applied in a manner consistent with MPPE 2106.04(d). the analysis explicitly evaluates each recite limitation, individually and in combination, apply the abstract idea, without overlooking or disregarding any portion of the claim language.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection does not oversimplify the claim nor improperly expand the “apply it” analysis. Each limitation, both individually and in combination has been considered in its entirety, and the claim remains directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Accordingly, this argument is not found persuasive. The §101 rejection is maintained.
While it is maintained that the §101 rejection properly applies the “apply it” step without oversimplification, Applicant may consider amending the claims to clarify how the claimed limitations are integrated into a practical application or how they provide a specific technical improvement in the operation of the system. Such amendments could assist in overcoming the rejection by more clearly demonstrating how the claimed limitation provides a technological solution, rather than merely implementing an abstract idea using generic commuting components.
12. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-11), system (claims 12-17), and system (claims 18-20), and is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing delivery activities, which encompasses activity for managing commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: receiving, at a backend of a fleet operating system architecture, vehicle data from one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, wherein the vehicle data comprises low fidelity data and high fidelity data and is related to delivery information associated with the one or more vehicles; providing the high fidelity data to a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend; providing the low fidelity data, in parallel, to a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend; generating, by the state change processing block based on the low fidelity data, telemetry data for the one or more vehicles; providing the telemetry data to the data mesh block at the backend; determining, at the backend based on the vehicle data, a health status of the one or more vehicles, wherein the health status comprises an indication of a predicted future trend of the health status of one or more components of the one or more vehicles; generating, by the prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a prediction of a fleet utilization or capacity for fulfilling a delivery demand based on the high fidelity data and the health status of the one or more vehicles; providing the prediction to the data mesh block at the backend; exposing, by the data mesh block, the prediction, the telemetry data, and the low fidelity data for display of a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture; and transmitting, based on a user input to the user interface, information to transfer a delivery load from the one or more vehicles to one or more other vehicles in the fleet to fulfill the delivery demand. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping and the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Independent claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and therefore are found to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 18, the additional elements are: a backend of a fleet operating system architecture, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 1); a fleet operating system architecture, a backend, a fleet operating system, a user interface, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of the user interface of the fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 12), a backend, a fleet operating system, a user interface, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of the user interface of the fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 17). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the “receiving” and “transmitting” steps are evaluated as additional elements, these steps amount at most to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 18, the additional elements are: a backend of a fleet operating system architecture, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 1); a fleet operating system architecture, a backend, a fleet operating system, a user interface, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of the user interface of the fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 12), a backend, a fleet operating system, a user interface, one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend, and a plurality of tabs of the user interface of the fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture (claim 17). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0165]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
With respect to the “receiving” and “transmitting” steps, even if considered as an addition element, these steps at most amounts to receiving/transmitting data, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-11 recite “wherein the delivery information comprises historical data associated with one or more of delivery loads, delivery routes, driving conditions during deliveries, driving incidents, or delivery frequency with respect to the fleet of vehicles,” “wherein the one or more components of the one or more vehicles comprise one or more of a tire of the one or more vehicles, a high-voltage battery of the one or more vehicles, or a low-voltage battery of the one or more vehicles,” “wherein the predicted future trend of the health status further comprises a predicted future trend of a mechanical wear of the one or more components, a predicted future trend of a condition of the one or more components, or a predicted future trend of usage of the one or more components,” “wherein generating the prediction of the fleet utilization or capacity comprises generating the prediction of the fleet utilization or capacity for fulfilling the delivery demand in one or more specified geographical areas,” “further comprising generating the prediction of the fleet utilization or capacity using one or more models and based on one or more of a historical downtime due to maintenance for the fleet of vehicles, a real-time or near real-time delivery load and routing demand for the fleet of vehicles, or a health status of the one or more other vehicles,” “wherein transmitting information to transfer the delivery load further comprises one or more of: transmitting information to the transfer the delivery load to another fleet of vehicles, accepting an incoming transfer of the delivery load, requesting one or more temporary vehicles for which to transfer the delivery load, or requesting an order for additional vehicles to be included in the fleet of vehicles,” “further comprising: generating a prediction of a maintenance servicing for at least one of the one or more components of the one or more vehicles; and updating the prediction of the fleet utilization or capacity based on the prediction of the maintenance servicing for the at least one of the one or more components,” “further comprising transmitting information to schedule an action addressing the predicted maintenance servicing for the at least one of the one or more components,” “further comprising: subsequent to transmitting the information to transfer the delivery load, causing the action addressing the predicted maintenance servicing for the at least one of the one or more components to be executed,” “further comprising: receiving an indication that the action addressing the predicted maintenance servicing for the at least one of the one or more components has been executed; and updating the prediction of the fleet utilization or capacity based at least in part on the received indication,” however these limitations are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to dependent claims 2-11, recite details/steps that merely refine the same abstract idea recite in the independent claims. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
Dependent claims recite additional elements of: one or more machine learning models (claim 6) [Even if the one or more machine learning models was evaluated as an element beyond software/code for a generic computer to execute, it is noted that that the claimed use of a recurrent neural network is recited at a high level of generality these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which fails to add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Magdon-Ismail et al., US 2009/0055270 (paragraph 39: “Both local and central engines may incorporate analysis techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and other techniques, which are well known in the art”). See also, Anders et al., US 2020/0020015 (paragraph 101: “inferences may be performed by any combination of means known in the art, such as by pattern-matching, text analytics, semantic analytics, statistical methods, artificial intelligence, Bayesian analysis, machine learning, or keyword searching”). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 18, the closest prior art, McKinley et al., Pub. No.: WO 2023/014418 A1, Harris et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0278759 A1, and Martineau et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0315082 A1, collectively teach features for receiving vehicle data from one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is related to delivery information associated with the one or more vehicles; determining, based on the vehicle data, a health status of the one or more vehicles, wherein the health status comprises an indication of a predicted future trend of the health status of one or more components of the one or more vehicles; generating a prediction of a fleet utilization or capacity for fulfilling a delivery demand based on the health status of the one or more vehicles; and transmitting information to transfer a delivery load from the one or more vehicles to one or more other vehicles in the fleet to fulfill the delivery demand,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 12 and 18) [See Office Action mailed 03/14/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to independent claim 1, McKinley et al., Harris et al., Martineau et al., and the other prior art of record does not teach “wherein the vehicle data comprises low fidelity data and high fidelity data; providing the high fidelity data to a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend; providing the low fidelity data, in parallel, to a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend; generating, by the state change processing block based on the low fidelity data, telemetry data for the one or more vehicles; providing the telemetry data to the data mesh block at the backend; generating, by the prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a prediction of a fleet utilization or capacity for fulfilling a delivery demand based on the high fidelity data; providing the prediction to the data mesh block at the backend; exposing, by the data mesh block, the prediction, the telemetry data, and the low fidelity data for display of a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture.” The prior art does not distinguish between low fidelity and high fidelity vehicle data nor processing them through separate backend components – providing the high fidelity data to a prescriptive action decision engine and the low fidelity data, in parallel, to a state change processing block and a data mesh block. The method further includes generating telemetry based on the low fidelity data and providing that telemetry data to the data mesh block, along with a prediction of fleet utilization or capacity generated by the prescriptive action decision engine. These outputs, along with the low fidelity data, are ten provided to and exposed by the data mesh block for display of a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system, The combination of fidelity-based parallel data processing, integrated data mesh coordination, structured exposure of multiple backend data types in a user interface, and backend-drive operational control is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A method, comprising: receiving, at a backend of a fleet operating system architecture, vehicle data from one or more vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, wherein the vehicle data comprises low fidelity data and high fidelity data and is related to delivery information associated with the one or more vehicles; providing the high fidelity data to a prescriptive action decision engine at the backend; providing the low fidelity data, in parallel, to a state change processing block at the backend and a data mesh block at the backend; generating, by the state change processing block based on the low fidelity data, telemetry data for the one or more vehicles; providing the telemetry data to the data mesh block at the backend; determining, at the backend based on the vehicle data, a health status of the one or more vehicles, wherein the health status comprises an indication of a predicted future trend of the health status of one or more components of the one or more vehicles; generating, by the prescriptive action decision engine at the backend, a prediction of a fleet utilization or capacity for fulfilling a delivery demand based on the high fidelity data and the health status of the one or more vehicles; providing the prediction to the data mesh block at the backend; exposing, by the data mesh block, the prediction, the telemetry data, and the low fidelity data for display of a plurality of tabs of a user interface of a fleet operating system of the fleet operating system architecture; and transmitting, based on a user input to the user interface, information to transfer a delivery load from the one or more vehicles to one or more other vehicles in the fleet to fulfill the delivery demand,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 12 and 18), thus rendering claims as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Panigrahi et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0096564 A1 – describes a self-balancing autonomous vehicle fleet.
Killeen, Patrick, et al. "IoT-based predictive maintenance for fleet management." Procedia Computer Science 151 (2019): 607-613 – describes an example of a predictive maintenance system for a fleet of public transport buses, which attempts to diagnose faulty buses that deviate from the rest of the bus fleet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights