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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/11/2026. Claims 12, 15-17, 19, and 21-22 are pending. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Simon (US 20190012636) and Antoon (WO 2016134315).
Regarding the argument that Antoon would not be relevant to the field of delivering via drones, Examiner’s response can be found under Claim Rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 15-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 20190012636) in view of Antoon (WO 2016134315).
Regarding claim 12, Simon teaches traveling, by a third entity, which is a first vehicle (Fig. 1, land vehicles 120), to the starting point (par. 19, “The management system 100 routes one or more land vehicles 120 from the warehouse 110 to one or more first dispatch locations 130. At the respective first dispatch locations 130, the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”), wherein the first vehicle comprises at least a third and fourth vehicle (Fig. 1, UAVs 140); traveling, by the third vehicle, along the route from the starting point to the first entity location (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”) and then returning to the starting point (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 may then return to the land vehicles 120 at a pickup location and are driven to other dispatch locations for delivery of one or more additional packages to one or more additional final destinations 144. In an aspect, the pickup location may be the same as the dispatch location 130 or 132”); traveling, by the fourth vehicle (Fig. 1, UAVs 140), along the route from the starting to the second entity location (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”) and then returning to the starting point (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 may then return to the land vehicles 120 at a pickup location and are driven to other dispatch locations for delivery of one or more additional packages to one or more additional final destinations 144. In an aspect, the pickup location may be the same as the dispatch location 130 or 132”).
Simon fails to teach method for determining a starting point between at least first and second entities, wherein the first entity determines its own location as a first entity location and the second entity determines its own location as a second entity location, wherein the first and second entities communicate using a communication interface, the method comprising: determining the first and second entity locations in map material, wherein the first and second entities are computing units; determining a route, composed of at least two route points each connected by a route section, between the first and second entity locations in the map material; and iteratively determining a position of the starting point on the route by subdividing the route sections included in the route into route subsections to provide a section of the route extending from the first entity location to the starting point can be covered in a same amount of time or has a same length as a section of the route extending from the second entity location to the starting point.
However, Antoon teaches a method for determining a starting point (par. 3, common meeting location) between at least first and second entities (par. 3, first client, second client), wherein the first entity determines its own location as a first entity location and the second entity determines its own location as a second entity location (par. 5, “the first and second locations from GPS units associated with the first and second clients”), wherein the first and second entities communicate using a communication interface (par. 37, "multiple clients 102(1-N) may send location information to one another"), the method comprising:
determining the first and second entity locations in map material, wherein the first and second entities are computing units (par. 5, "receiving location information specifying the first and second locations from GPS units");
determining a route, composed of at least two route points each connected by a route section (par. 5, first and second locations), between the first and second entity locations in the map material (par. 5, "receiving information relating to a route between the first and second locations”);
and iteratively determining a position of the starting point (par. 6, midpoint) on the route by subdividing the route sections included in the route into route subsections (par. 6, "the route comprises a plurality of steps") to provide a section of the route extending from the first entity location to the starting point can be covered in a same amount of time or has a same length as a section of the route extending from the second entity location to the starting point (par. 52, “A threshold may be stored for the midpoint (e.g. a threshold of 1 minute may indicate that no contact should have a projected travel time greater than 1 minute longer than any other participant)"; par 55 "A desired duration to the floating waypoint may be identified (e.g. by dividing the total duration by 2)"), wherein the first and second entities each move, using a means of transport, along the route (par. 48, "mode of transportation").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simon to incorporate the teachings of Antoon so that the drones would reach their destination at around the same time (par. 3). Reaching their destination at the same time would lead to minimizing the time it takes for the drones to deliver their package and return to the land vehicle to continue their route. This would obviously increase the efficiency of Simon’s delivery method. If Simon’s land vehicle were to pick a dispatch location that was not equal in distance/time from the delivery locations, then time could be wasted waiting for the UAVs to return.
Antoon teaches a method for determining a common meeting location for two clients in which the meeting location would take the same amount of time to arrive. While Simon and Antoon may not be in the same field of endeavor, determining a drop-off point which would lead to the most efficient route for Simon’s UAV’s to make their deliveries and return to the land vehicle would have led to one of ordinary skill to look towards Antoon. A reference is considered analogous art to the claimed invention if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (MPEP § 2141.01(a), subsection I). Antoon states, “The meeting location selected by the Waypoint Navigation System 124 may be a best (e.g., fastest, equidistant, etc.) point to navigate to for each of the clients 102(1-N) connected on the application at that time” (par. 37). While it is true that in delivering packages, it is not important if the packages are delivered at the same time, a fair dispatch location located in the middle between the two delivery locations would generally lead to a quicker delivery. If an unfair dispatch location is chosen that favors one drone, that drone will finish its delivery in a short amount of time while the other drone would take much longer, since the delivery location would be farther away. Simon states, “The ability to dispatch UAVs 140 may also be impacted by practical concerns not specifically regulated. For example, the land vehicle 120 may need to park, stand, or have a limited amount of movement for a threshold amount of time at the dispatch location 130 and/or 132 in order for each UAV 140 to deliver its package and return to the land vehicle 120” (par. 24). The land vehicle waits while the UAV delivers the packages. Therefore, it would be a reasonable improvement of Simon to minimize the delivery time of all UAV deliveries. Choosing a fair dispatch location is a logical way of minimizing the time. One of ordinary skill in the art would be incentivized to find a method of determining a fair central location between the two delivery locations. A method for a fair meeting point would be an obvious solution for this. Therefore, Simon and Antoon would be considered analogous art.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Simon in view of Antoon teaches the method of claim 12. Simon fails to teach the determining the first and second entity locations in the map material involves determining the first and second entity locations in a first map material and determining the first and second entity locations in a second map material, wherein the first and second map material are from at least two map providers, the method further comprising: comparing the locations determined for the first entity in the first and second map material; and comparing the locations determined for the second entity in the first and second map material.
However, Antoon teaches the determining the first and second entity locations in the map material involves determining the first and second entity locations in a first map material (par. 37, third party servers) and determining the first and second entity locations in a second map material (par. 37, third party servers), wherein the first and second map material are from at least two map providers (par. 37, "the Waypoint Navigation System 124 may communicate with one or more third party servers 150 to retrieve with data (e.g., map, traffic, etc.) from third party data providers"), the method further comprising:
comparing the locations determined for the first entity in the first and second map material (par. 37, "The retrieved data from the third party servers 150 may be used by the Waypoint Navigation System 124 algorithm to calculate the routing and meeting location based on real time traffic data and map plotting data.");
and comparing the locations determined for the second entity in the first and second map material (par. 37, "The retrieved data from the third party servers 150 may be used by the Waypoint Navigation System 124 algorithm to calculate the routing and meeting location based on real time traffic data and map plotting data.").
Antoon does not explicitly teach comparing the locations in the first and second map material. However, Antoon does teach using one or more third party servers to gather map data, and to use that data to calculate the meeting point (par. 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to conclude that by comparing the map data of the multiple third party servers, one would be able to better ensure the accuracy of the first and second entity locations.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simon to incorporate the teachings of Antoon so that the drones would reach their destination at around the same time (par. 3). Reaching their destination at the same time would lead to minimizing the time it takes for the drones to deliver their package and return to the land vehicle to continue their route. This would obviously increase the efficiency of Simon’s delivery method. If Simon’s land vehicle were to pick a dispatch location that was not equal in distance/time from the delivery locations, then time could be wasted waiting for the UAVs to return.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Simon in view of Antoon teaches the method of claim 12. Simon fails to teach the determination of the route between the first and second entities accounts for current traffic information.
However, Antoon teaches the determination of the route between the first and second entities accounts for current traffic information (par. 37, "The retrieved data from the third party servers 150 may be used by the Waypoint Navigation System 124 algorithm to calculate the routing and meeting location based on real time traffic data and map plotting data.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simon to incorporate the teachings of Antoon so that the drones would reach their destination at around the same time (par. 3). Reaching their destination at the same time would lead to minimizing the time it takes for the drones to deliver their package and return to the land vehicle to continue their route. This would obviously increase the efficiency of Simon’s delivery method. If Simon’s land vehicle were to pick a dispatch location that was not equal in distance/time from the delivery locations, then time could be wasted waiting for the UAVs to return.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Simon in view of Antoon teaches the method of claim 12. Simon further teaches the third and fourth vehicles are flying drones (Fig. 1, UAVs 140)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Simon in view of Antoon teaches the method of claim 12. Simon fails to teach the determination of the position of the starting point comprises: calculating the route between the first entity location and the second entity location; determining a half distance by halving the calculated route with respect to a pathlength of the calculated route or a time required to cover the calculated route; as long as a current distance originating from one of the first and second entity locations is smaller than the half distance, adding a next subsequent route section to the current distance; as soon as the current distance is greater than the half distance, subdividing a last added route section into n route subsections; and as long as the current distance minus the last added route section is smaller than the half distance, adding a next subsequent route subsection to the current distance.
However, Antoon teaches the determination of the position of the starting point comprises:
calculating the route between the first entity location and the second entity location (par. 5, “receiving information relating to a route between the first and second locations, and calculating a midpoint of the route”);
determining a half distance by halving the calculated route with respect to a path length of the calculated route or a time required to cover the calculated route (par. 55, "A desired duration to the floating waypoint may be identified (e.g. by dividing the total duration by 2)");
as long as a current distance originating from one of the first and second entity locations is smaller than the half distance, adding a next subsequent route section to the current distance (par. 6, “Calculating the midpoint of the route may include identifying a midpoint step of the plurality of steps occurring during a midpoint of a total route time”);
as soon as the current distance is greater than the half distance, subdividing a last added route section into n route subsections (par. 6, “calculating a fraction of the midpoint step to be elapsed before reaching the midpoint of the total route time”);
and as long as the current distance minus the last added route section is smaller than the half distance, adding a next subsequent route subsection to the current distance (par. 6, “identifying a location at the fraction of the midpoint step”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simon to incorporate the teachings of Antoon so that the drones would reach their destination at around the same time (par. 3). Reaching their destination at the same time would lead to minimizing the time it takes for the drones to deliver their package and return to the land vehicle to continue their route. This would obviously increase the efficiency of Simon’s delivery method. If Simon’s land vehicle were to pick a dispatch location that was not equal in distance/time from the delivery locations, then time could be wasted waiting for the UAVs to return.
Regarding claim 22, Simon teaches a third entity, which is a first vehicle (Fig. 1, land vehicles 120), wherein the first vehicle comprises a third and fourth vehicle (Fig. 1, UAVs 140), wherein the first vehicle is configured to travel to the starting point (par. 19, “The management system 100 routes one or more land vehicles 120 from the warehouse 110 to one or more first dispatch locations 130. At the respective first dispatch locations 130, the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”), wherein the third vehicle is configured to travel along the route from the starting point to the first entity location (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”) and then returning to the starting point (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 may then return to the land vehicles 120 at a pickup location and are driven to other dispatch locations for delivery of one or more additional packages to one or more additional final destinations 144. In an aspect, the pickup location may be the same as the dispatch location 130 or 132”), and wherein the fourth vehicle (Fig. 1, UAVs 140) is configured to travel along the route from the starting to the second entity location (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 are dispatched from the land vehicles 120 to deliver packages to one or more final destinations 142”) and then returning to the starting point (par. 19, “the UAVs 140 may then return to the land vehicles 120 at a pickup location and are driven to other dispatch locations for delivery of one or more additional packages to one or more additional final destinations 144. In an aspect, the pickup location may be the same as the dispatch location 130 or 132”).
Simon fails to teach a system for determining a starting point between at least first and second entities, the system comprises: the first and second entities, wherein the first entity determines its own location as a first entity location and the second entity determines its own location as a second entity location, wherein the first and second entities are configured to respectively communicate the first and second entity locations to the other one of the first and second entities, wherein the first and second entities are both configured to determine the first and second entity locations in map material; determine a route, composed of at least two route points each connected by a route section, between the first and second entity locations in the map material; and iteratively determine a position of the starting point on the route by subdividing the route sections included in the route into route subsections to provide a section of the route extending from the first entity location to the starting point can be covered in a same amount of time or has a same length as a section of the route extending from the second entity location to the starting point, wherein the first and second entities each move, using a means of transport, along the route.
However, Antoon teaches a system (Fig. 1, Waypoint Navigation System) for determining a starting point (par. 3, common meeting location) between at least first and second entities (par. 3, first client, second client), the system comprises:
the first and second entities, wherein the first entity determines its own location as a first entity location and the second entity determines its own location as a second entity location (par. 5, “the first and second locations from GPS units associated with the first and second clients”), wherein the first and second entities are configured to respectively communicate the first and second entity locations to the other one of the first and second entities (par. 37, "multiple clients 102(1-N) may send location information to one another"), wherein the first and second entities are both configured to determine the first and second entity locations in map material (par. 5, "receiving location information specifying the first and second locations from GPS units");
determine a route, composed of at least two route points each connected by a route section (par. 5, first and second locations), between the first and second entity locations in the map material (par. 5, "receiving information relating to a route between the first and second locations”);
and iteratively determine a position of the starting point (par. 6, midpoint) on the route by subdividing the route sections included in the route into route subsections (par. 6, "the route comprises a plurality of steps") to provide a section of the route extending from the first entity location to the starting point can be covered in a same amount of time or has a same length as a section of the route extending from the second entity location to the starting point (par. 52, “A threshold may be stored for the midpoint (e.g. a threshold of 1 minute may indicate that no contact should have a projected travel time greater than 1 minute longer than any other participant)"; par 55 "A desired duration to the floating waypoint may be identified (e.g. by dividing the total duration by 2)"), wherein the first and second entities each move, using a means of transport, along the route (par. 48, "mode of transportation").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Simon to incorporate the teachings of Antoon so that the drones would reach their destination at around the same time (par. 3). Reaching their destination at the same time would lead to minimizing the time it takes for the drones to deliver their package and return to the land vehicle to continue their route. This would obviously increase the efficiency of Simon’s delivery method. If Simon’s land vehicle were to pick a dispatch location that was not equal in distance/time from the delivery locations, then time could be wasted waiting for the UAVs to return.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon in view of Antoon, and further in view of Baer (US 20180149484).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Simon in view of Antoon teaches the method of claim 12 as applied above.
Both Simon and Anton fail to teach an amount of CO2 arising by moving at least one means of transport along the route or an energy amount required by at least one means of transport for moving along the route at least one of the following criteria is also taken into account for determining the position of the starting point on the route.
However, Baer teaches an amount of CO2 arising by moving at least one means of transport along the route or an energy amount required by at least one means of transport for moving along the route at least one of the following criteria is also taken into account for determining the position of the starting point on the route (par. 55, cost could be defined by time, financial expense, physical exertion, amount of fuel, vehicular wear-and-tear, or CO2 emissions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Simon in view of Antoon to incorporate the teachings of Baer. By taking these into account, Simon in view of Antoon would be better able to determine a fair meeting point using user-chosen factors (par. 57, cost function; par 2).
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 MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665