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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 15, and 20 are amended. Claim 21 is newly added. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered by the examiner and are found to be persuasive. The rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the previously applied prior art of record have been considered by the examiner but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below.
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 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al (US 2010/0100507) in view of Gil (US 2019/0143872).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a vehicle comprising: a transceiver configured to receive inventory information associated with a plurality of packages from a server (see at least paragraph [0018] to Davidson et al), wherein the inventory information comprises a plurality of delivery addresses associated with the plurality of packages (see at least paragraph [0031] to Davidson et al); a control unit configured to determine vehicle information (see at least paragraph [0021] to Davidson et al); and a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the control unit, wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the inventory information and the vehicle information see at least paragraph [0031] to Davidson et al); determine that a predefined condition is met based on the inventory information and the vehicle information see at least paragraph [0045] to Davidson et al); generate a geofence for each delivery address based on the vehicle information responsive to determining that the predefined condition is met see at least paragraph [0038] to Davidson et al); determine that the vehicle has entered the geofence based on the vehicle information see at least paragraph [0045] to Davidson et al.
Davidson et al does not explicitly disclose a plurality of bins configured to hold the plurality of packages;
A bin mover unit configured to move at least one bin at least one bin containing one or more packages of the plurality of packages; and
perform[ing] a predefined action responsive to determining that the vehicle has entered the geofence.
However, Gil discloses an automated package transport vehicle, further comprising a plurality of bins configured to hold the plurality of packages (see at least paragraph [0050] to Gil);
A bin mover unit configured to move at least one bin at least one bin containing one or more packages of the plurality of packages (see at least paragraph [0073] to Gil); and
perform[ing] a predefined action responsive to determining that the vehicle has entered the geofence. (see at least paragraph [0142] to Gil).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method of determining vehicle visit costs to a geographic area, as disclosed by Davidson et al and the automated package transport vehicle, system, and method as taught by Gil, in order to provide a system and method for autonomous package delivery, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle information comprises a vehicle geolocation, a vehicle speed and a connection status with the server when the vehicle is travelling, and wherein the inventory information further comprises storage information of each package in the plurality of bins (see at least paragraph [0013] to Davidson et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 3 further comprising: a package unloading area; and wherein the predefined action associated with the bin mover unit comprises moving the at least one bin to the package unloading area when the vehicle is travelling (see at least paragraph [0073] to Gil).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the predefined action comprises activating the bin mover unit to move the at least one bin to a package unloading area in the vehicle(see at least paragraph [0073] to Gil).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the geofence based on a time duration required by the bin mover unit to move the at least one bin to the package unloading area (see at least paragraph [0046] to Davidson et al, wherein time necessary to perform a delivery is ascertained).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the geofence based on an average vehicle speed on a vehicle delivery route, and wherein dimensions of each geofence of a plurality of geofences associated with the plurality of delivery addresses is same (see at least paragraph [0014] to Davidson et al, wherein the telematics data is used to assign parameters to geofenced delivery areas).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the inventory information further comprises a preset travel route for the vehicle (see at least paragraph [0035] to Davidson et al, wherein the vehicle route is provided).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the predefined condition is met when the vehicle deviates by more than a predefined distance threshold from the preset travel route (see at least paragraph [0074] to Davidson et al, wherein the distance in association with the plan time for the route is monitored by the system).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 3 further comprising a memory configured to store the inventory information (see at least paragraph [0018] to Davidson et al, wherein data may be stored in one or more volatile or non-volatile memory modules).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 10, when the predefined condition is met when the connection status indicates that a connection with the server is lost (see at least paragraph [0034] to Davidson et al, wherein the method may be performed via a mesh network in lieu of communication with a central server).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: update the inventory information when the at least one package is delivered; and store an updated inventory information in the memory (see at least paragraph [0048] to Davidson et al, wherein an indication is given that the package has been delivered and the information is stored for use thereafter).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the updated inventory information to the server when the connection with the server is restored (see at least paragraph [0036] to Davidson et al, wherein pickup and delivery data is sent to the central system).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the geofence for a delivery address based on a distance of the delivery address from an adjacent delivery address on a vehicle delivery route (see at least paragraph [0080] to Davidson et al, wherein the distance between each geofenced area is ascertained).
Claims 15-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art, in combination, discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein generating the geofence comprises generating the geofence based on a distance between adjacent delivery addresses (see at least paragraph [0142] to Gil).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627