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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 05/05/2025. Claims 1 – 20 were amended in a reply filed 07/24/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/24/2025 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered and are persuasive. In particular, the controlling of the autonomous vehicles using “controllers to cause the at least two autonomous vehicles to form a platoon of moving vehicles in the one or more temporary lanes” serves to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 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
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp et al. (US 20150269520 A1), in view of Liang et al. (US 20180330319 A1), in view of Curlander et al. (US 11231706 B1).
As per Claim 1, Knapp discloses a system, comprising: a memory configured to store computer executable components; and a processor that executes at least one of the computer-executable components ([0057] – [0058], [0136], [0150] & claim 19) that:
• determines autonomous vehicles for package delivery, from a group of autonomous vehicles connected to a wireless communication network, based on respective delivery destination information for the autonomous vehicles ([0048], [0033], [0036], [0088], [0091], [0140], & [0131] – [0132], determining that “the second vehicle” will transport an item to “the drop-off location.” As per [0108], the vehicles may be “driverless transport vehicles” (i.e., autonomous). Also [0023], determining vehicles that can access particular locations (e.g., destination) and [0066], directing a particular vehicle to deliver an item to a destination.);
• defines one or more temporary lanes on a road based on predicted travel positions from the delivery destination information for the autonomous vehicles ([0027], [0040] – [0042], [0080], [0118], & [0131], selecting an “item exchange location” based on optimizing a vehicle route to include a maximum number of drop-off locations for a predicted future travel route for a first vehicle to transfer an item to a second vehicle to be routed to a drop-off location.);
• and performs transshipment of packages between at least two of the autonomous vehicles driving within the one or more temporary lanes ([0048], [0067], [0128], instructing the transfer of an item from the first transport vehicle to the second transport vehicle at an item exchange location.; [0073], “the compatibility between the physical characteristics can enable automatic transfer and/or automatic exchange of the item from a first vehicle to a second vehicle.”).
To the extent to which Knapp does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Liang teaches:
• wherein performing the transshipment comprises: controlling, via instructions transmitted on the wireless communication network to respective controllers of the at least two autonomous vehicles, the respective controllers to cause the at least two autonomous vehicles to form a platoon of moving vehicles in the one or more temporary lanes, where the platoon comprises the at least two autonomous vehicles being in a side-by-side arrangement or a front-to-back arrangement (See [0027] – [0028], noting that “information processing system 10” transmits instructions to control autonomous vehicles to travel in either a side-by-side arrangement ([0027]) or a front-to-back arrangement ([0028]) to transfer packages between the vehicles. As per at least [0017] – [0018], information processing system 10 “communicates information to the two or more autonomous vehicles for them to execute the plan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Liang in the system/method of Knapp with the motivation to “enable efficient routing and delivery of packages transported by autonomous vehicles,” as evidenced by Liang ([0001]).
Regarding the following limitations,
• wherein one or more general vehicles are prohibited from traveling in the one or more temporary lanes, and the one or more temporary lanes are released for general vehicle travel upon completing the transshipment,
Knapp, in [0038], discloses that the one or more temporary lanes (i.e., item exchange location) can be a multitude of types of locations, including “a parking lot, …a side of the road, under a street light on a sidewalk, and the like,” and as per [0112], can also include “street parking, etc.” Knapp, in [0026], further discloses that the item exchange location can “follow a particular transport route (e.g., the item exchange location is located on Main Street in the morning and Alpha Way in the afternoon).” In other words, Knapp discloses that the item exchange location can be along roadways. To the extent to which Knapp does not appear to explicitly disclose temporarily closing a road lane during the transfer of items between delivery vehicles, Curlander teaches this element. For example, See Curlander, Fig. 5A & C 18, L 64 – 67, noting that street lanes are used for a package exchange. As per C 19, L 16 – 26, the lanes of the street are closed. As per C 19, L 57 – C 20, L 6, the package is transferred from “UAV 104” to “delivery robot 130” in the closed lanes. As per C 20, L 19 – 26, the “delivery robot 130” releases the lanes for general vehicle travel upon completing the transshipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the temporary lane closure during transshipment as in Curlander in the system of Knapp / Liang with the motivation to enable the safe and accurate delivery of a package, as evidenced by Curlander C 2, L 26 – 27).
As per claim 8, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Knapp additionally discloses a computer implemented method in at least [0106], [0112], [0116] – [0117], & claim 1 of Knapp.
As per claim 14, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Knapp additionally discloses a computer program product for locating temporary distribution lanes on a road for transshipment, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform the steps as outlined above as per claim 1 in at least claim 19 and [0053] & [0057] of Knapp.
As per claims 2, 9, & 15, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 14. To the extent to which Knapp does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Curlander teaches:
• wherein the at least one of the computer-executable components further: dynamically allocate the one or more temporary lanes for the autonomous vehicles to transfer packages therebetween (See C 19, L 16 – 26, noting the lanes of the street are allocated to be closed. As per C 19, L 57 – C 20, L 6, the package is transferred from “UAV 104” to “delivery robot 130” in the closed lanes.). Rationale to combine Curlander persists.
As per claim 3, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claim 2. Knapp further discloses wherein the at least two autonomous vehicles comprise:
• a first autonomous vehicle having one or more first packages corresponding to a first delivery address and one or more second packages corresponding to a second delivery address ([0020], [0032], [0035], & [0047], each vehicle delivers items to multiple drop-off locations corresponding to multiple “requesters.” Also see [0015], noting that a route may enable a transport vehicle to “pick-up items from locations 336, 338, or 340” and “stop at one or more drop-off locations 336, 338, or 340.”);
• and a second autonomous vehicle having one or more third packages corresponding to the first delivery address and one or more fourth packages corresponding to the second delivery address (([0020], [0032], [0035], & [0047], each of multiple vehicles delivers items to multiple drop-off locations corresponding to multiple “requesters.” Also see [0015], noting that a route may enable a transport vehicle to “pick-up items from locations 336, 338, or 340” and “stop at one or more drop-off locations 336, 338, or 340.”);
• and wherein at least one of the computer-executable components further: defines the one or more temporary lanes where a first planned route of the first autonomous vehicle overlaps with a second planned route of the second autonomous vehicle to facilitate an exchange of packages during the transshipment (See Fig. 1 & [0019], [0032] – [0033], [0036] – [0037], & [0118] noting that “exchange locations 110” are identified where routes for multiple delivery vehicle intersect.).
As per claim 10 & 16, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 9 & 15. Knapp further discloses:
• defining, by the system, the one or more temporary lanes where a first planned route of a first autonomous vehicle of the autonomous vehicles, having one or more first packages corresponding to a first delivery address and one or more second packages corresponding to a second delivery address, overlaps with a second planned route of a second autonomous vehicle of the autonomous vehicles, having one or more third packages corresponding to the first delivery address and one or more fourth packages corresponding to the second delivery address, to facilitate an exchange of packages during the transshipment (See [0027], [0040] – [0042], [0080], [0118], & [0131], noting defining an “item exchange location” based on optimizing a vehicle route to include a maximum number of drop-off locations for a predicted future travel route for a first vehicle to transfer an item to a second vehicle to be routed to a drop-off location. As per [0015], [0020], [0032], [0035], & [0047], each of the plurality of vehicles delivers items to multiple drop-off locations corresponding to multiple “requesters,” and therefore has one or more first packages corresponding to a first delivery address and one or more second packages corresponding to a second delivery address.).
As per claims 4 & 17, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 3 & 16. Knapp further discloses wherein:
• the at least one of the computer-executable components further: controlling, via additional instructions transmitted on the wireless communication network to at least one respective load/unload controller of at least one of the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle to cause the at least one respective load/unload controller to move the one or more third packages to the first autonomous vehicle and move the one or more second packages to the second autonomous vehicle (See [0046] & [0048], noting that a first and second vehicle exchange multiple items other at an item exchange location. Also see [0118], noting that a “first transport vehicle 406 can provide the item 408 to the second transport vehicle 432, or vice versa,” and subsequently “both transport vehicles may continue on their transport routes to pick-up, drop-off” locations for the transported items. Examiner’s note: Although Knapp discloses the claimed transfer of items from a first vehicle to a second vehicle and vice versa, the “mere reversal of such movement” has been “held to be an obvious modification” (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Also see MPEP § 2144.04(VI.)(A.))
As per claim 11, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claim 10. Knapp further discloses wherein performing the transshipment further comprises:
• controlling, by the system, via additional instructions transmitted on the wireless communication network to at least one respective load/unload controller of at least one of the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle to cause the at least one respective load/unload controller to move the one or more third packages from the second autonomous vehicle to the first autonomous vehicle and move the one or more second packages from the first autonomous vehicle to the second autonomous vehicle (See [0046] & [0048], noting that “The transport vehicles can be instructed to exchange the item container at the item exchange location.” Also see [0118], noting that a “first transport vehicle 406 can provide the item 408 to the second transport vehicle 432, or vice versa,” and subsequently “both transport vehicles may continue on their transport routes to pick-up, drop-off” locations for the transported items. Examiner’s note: Although Knapp discloses the claimed transfer of items from a first vehicle to a second vehicle and vice versa, the “mere reversal of such movement” has been “held to be an obvious modification” (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Also see MPEP § 2144.04(VI.)(A.)),
• wherein the first autonomous vehicle travels to the first delivery address and the second autonomous vehicle travels to the second delivery address (See [0036] – [0037], & esp. [0118], noting that a “first transport vehicle 406 can provide the item 408 to the second transport vehicle 432, or vice versa,” and subsequently “both transport vehicles may continue on their transport routes to pick-up, drop-off” locations for the transported items.).
As per claims 5 & 18, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 4 & 17. Knapp further discloses:
• wherein the first autonomous vehicle travels to the first delivery address and the second autonomous vehicle travels to the second delivery address (See [0036] – [0037], & esp. [0118], noting that a “first transport vehicle 406 can provide the item 408 to the second transport vehicle 432, or vice versa,” and subsequently “both transport vehicles may continue on their transport routes to pick-up, drop-off” locations for the transported items.).
As per claims 6, 12, & 19, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 5, 11, & 16. Knapp further discloses:
• wherein at least one of the first delivery address or the second delivery address is another temporary lane for further transshipment (See [0038], noting that “item exchange location can include a… residential location.” Also see [0118], noting that a “first transport vehicle 406 can provide the item 408 to the second transport vehicle 432, or vice versa,” and subsequently “both transport vehicles may continue on their transport routes to… meet other transport vehicles at other item exchange locations” (i.e., a first delivery address) for the transported items.).
As per claims 7, 13, & 20, Knapp / Liang / Curlander discloses the limitations of claims 4, 11, & 16. To the extent to which Knapp does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Liang teaches:
• wherein the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle are physically connected during the transshipment (Fig. 4 & [0028], “platform 51 joins the two vehicles into a two-vehicle platoon”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Liang in the system/method of Knapp / Liang / Curlander “so they travel together as a combined vehicle with common control,” as evidenced by Liang ([0028]).
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights