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 .
Status of the Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 25 August 2025. Claims 25-27 and 29-32 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 1-24 and 28 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Drawings objections, Specification objection associated with “mobile locker” and “biometric locking mechanism”, Claim Objections, Claim Interpretation, and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 23 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawings objections, Specification objection associated with “mobile locker” and “biometric locking mechanism”, Claim Objections, Claim Interpretation, and rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 23 April 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Specification objection associated with “locking mechanism” as set forth in the office action of 23 April 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. The claims still recite “locking mechanism”, e.g. in claim 26, while the specification does not provide antecedent basis for such. See Specification objection below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 23 April 2025 have been considered. Regarding Applicant’s arguments associated with “Rathi, Endo, and Cha are not eligible prior art”, Examiner notes that the limitations that Rathi, Endo and Cha were previously used for did not have a priority date of September 14, 2017 as they were only introduced in the present application with the filing date of 20 February 2023 as noted by the Examiner on pages 5-6 in the office action of 23 April 2025, such limitations have now been omitted by the Applicant and as such Examiner will not need/use Rathi, Endo and Cha. Regarding Applicant’s arguments associated with “Theobold and Patron, alone or in combination, do not disclose all of the recitations of claims 25-32”, Applicant does not specify a particular limitation, Examiner is assuming Applicant’s arguments are associated with the limitation “wherein the central controller receives inputs related to guest reservations of an amusement park, and wherein the instructions cause the vehicle to travel to a tracked location of the guest having the guest reservation” => Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and/or MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required. Specification does not provide antecedent basis for: “locking mechanism”.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the vehicle” should be amended to recite “the autonomous vehicle” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “central controller” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See Figure 2 and [0028] of as-filed specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “a reader configured to receive the guest identification signal from a guest device”. The specification only provides support for “one or more readers configured to receive ... a wireless signal from the guest device 20 to confirm the presence of a guest 12 and/or to provide guest verification data” (e.g. in [0030] of the as-filed specification); however, there is no support in the specification for the reader to be receiving “the guest identification signal from a guest device”, especially for the guest identification signal the locker is keyed to.
Claim 26 recites “wherein a locking mechanism of the locker is responsive to a biometric input”. The specification only provides support for “one or more readers configured to receive biometric input (e.g., a fingerprint, facial image)” (e.g. in [0030] of the as-filed specification); however, there is no support for a locking mechanism to be responsive to the biometric input.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the communication circuitry is configured to receive the biometric input”. The specification only provides support for “the sensors 75 may include one or more readers configured to receive biometric input (e.g., a fingerprint, facial image)” (e.g. in [0030] of the as-filed specification); however, there is no support for the communication circuitry (80) to be receiving the biometric input.
Claims 29-32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the guest reservation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. The previous limitation is “guest reservations” and not a guest reservation of the guest.
Claim 31 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “wherein the vehicle controller receives input from the sensor and controls the path based on the input”. It is unclear, to the examiner, whether Applicant meant to instead recite “wherein the vehicle controller receives input from the sensor and controls the path further based on the input” or whether the limitation of claim 31 is meant to replace the limitation of claim 25, “vehicle controller configured to control a path of the autonomous vehicle based on instructions from a central controller ...”.
Claims 26-27, 29-30 and 32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 25-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US9720414B1) in view of Wellborn (US20170213308A1) in further view of Patron (US20150202770A1).
Regarding claim 25, Theobald discloses an autonomous vehicle (see at least abstract and lines 16-18 of Col. 1), comprising: a locker keyed to a guest identification signal (see at least Figure 4, lines 43-55 of Col. 3, lines 54-64 of Col. 4, and lines 7-23&33-42 of Col. 6 and line 53 of Col.9-line 10 of Col. 10), wherein the locker is configured to hold personal belongings of a guest (see at least lines 59-63 of Col. 2, lines 43-48/63-64 of Col. 3 and lines 4-6/9-11 of Col. 4), a vehicle controller configured to control a path of the autonomous vehicle based on instructions from a central controller (see at least lines 1-2&21-31 of Col. 5, line 62 of Col.8-line 17 of Col.9, lines 33-40 of Col. 9 and lines 42-61 of Col. 13); a sensor configured to detect one or more objects (see at least lines 64-66 of Col. 2 and lines 22-28 of Col. 4); a reader configured to receive the guest identification signal from a guest device (see at least lines 43-55 of Col. 3, lines 54-64 of Col. 4, and lines 7-23&33-42 of Col. 6, lines 31-49 of Col. 7 and line 53 of Col.9-line 10 of Col. 10); a motor configured to drive the autonomous vehicle according to instructions of the vehicle controller (see at least lines 21-31 of Col. 5 and lines 33-40 of Col. 9); communication circuitry (see at least Figure 2).
Theobald fails to disclose wherein the central controller receives inputs related to guest reservations of an amusement park, and wherein the instructions cause the vehicle to travel to a tracked location of the guest having the guest reservation. However, Wellborn teaches wherein the central controller receives inputs related to guest reservations of an amusement park, and wherein the instructions cause the vehicle to travel to a tracked location of the guest having the guest reservation (see at least [0014], [0020], [0034], [0037], [0039], [0041], [0044] and [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Theobald to incorporate the teachings of Wellborn which teaches wherein the central controller receives inputs related to guest reservations of an amusement park, and wherein the instructions cause the vehicle to travel to a tracked location of the guest having the guest reservation since they are both directed to transportation system(s) and vehicle locker(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Wellborn would increase utility and flexibility of the overall system.
Theobald as modified by Wellborn does not explicitly disclose the autonomous vehicle comprising a power source that powers operations of the autonomous vehicle. However, Patron teaches the autonomous vehicle comprising a power source that powers operations of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0106]-[0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Theobald as modified by Wellborn to incorporate the teachings of Patron which teaches the autonomous vehicle comprising a power source that powers operations of the autonomous vehicle since they are directed to vehicle locker(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Patron would increase accuracy of the overall system by further indicating details on how exactly operations of the autonomous vehicle are powered.
Regarding claim 26, Theobald as modified by Wellborn and Patron discloses wherein a locking mechanism of the locker is responsive to a biometric input (see at least Theobald lines 43-55 of Col. 3, lines 54-64 of Col. 4, and lines 7-23&33-42 of Col. 6, line 53 of Col.9-line 10 of Col. 10 and line 65 of Col. 16-line 5 of Col. 17).
Regarding claim 27, Theobald as modified by Wellborn and Patron discloses wherein the communication circuitry is configured to receive the biometric input (see at least Theobald lines 43-55 of Col. 3, lines 54-64 of Col. 4, and lines 7-23&33-42 of Col. 6, line 53 of Col.9-line 10 of Col. 10 and line 65 of Col. 16-line 5 of Col. 17).
Regarding claim 29, Theobald as modified by Wellborn and Patron discloses wherein the sensor comprises one or more cameras, laser scanners, and/or ultrasonic scanners (see at least Theobald lines 29-38 of Col. 4 and lines 9-11 of Col. 13).
Regarding claim 30, Theobald as modified by Wellborn does not explicitly disclose wherein the power source comprises a battery, a solar panel, an electrical generator, a gas engine, or any combination thereof. However, Patron teaches wherein the power source comprises a battery, a solar panel, an electrical generator, a gas engine, or any combination thereof (see at least [0106]-[0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Theobald as modified by Wellborn to incorporate the teachings of Patron which teaches wherein the power source comprises a battery, a solar panel, an electrical generator, a gas engine, or any combination thereof since they are directed to vehicle locker(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Patron would increase accuracy of the overall system by further indicating details on how exactly operations of the autonomous vehicle are powered.
Regarding claim 31, Theobald as modified by Wellborn and Patron discloses wherein the vehicle controller receives input from the sensor and controls the path based on the input (see at least Theobald lines 64-66 of Col. 2, lines 21-31 of Col. 5, lines 33-40 of Col. 9 and lines 42-61 of Col. 13).
Regarding claim 32, Theobald as modified by Wellborn and Patron discloses wherein the autonomous vehicle is part of a fleet (see at least Theobald lines 51-52 of Col. 14).
Conclusion
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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667