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 .
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-19 are currently being examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 7, line 18 has the term "communicator", but does not specify whether this is the previously referenced "terminal communicator" or a different device used for communication between the first and second controller, and does not have a Ref. Numeral to further distinguish it.
Additionally, line numbering throughout the specification is recommended to
count blank lines for the purpose of clarity. It currently only counts lines containing text. While not mandatory, it is recommended to avoid any potential publication issues and confusion for references to specific text therein. To avoid miscommunication, Examiner will attempt to use Applicant’s line numbering in this correspondence.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: "mobility device", "mobility apparatus", "base part", "loading part", "driving device", "user terminal", "terminal communicator", and "communicator".
Examiner notes that while Applicant may be their own lexicographer, the mentioned terms are unclear and ambiguous to the point of potential confusion about the nature of the inventive concept or the limitations inherent to it. Changing the terms used or adding clarification to the specification, while avoiding adding new matter, may help alleviate the issue.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, uses “an” instead of “a” next to “product identifier”, the office recommends “a product identifier” for improved grammar and readability;
Claim 4, line 3, contains a typo, “based the one or more” is missing the word “on” after “based”; the office recommends “based on the one or more”;
Claim 17, line 4, “to an outside” is unclear and appears to be missing a word or words to more clearly describe the feature.
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.
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: "base part" (Claims 1-19), "loading part" (Claims 1-19), "cargo part" (Claims 1-19), "product identifier" (Claims 1-10 and 14-16), and "input/output device" (Claims 2-10 and 13-19), in Claim(s) 1-19.
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.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/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.
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 11, the terms “mobility apparatus”, “base part”, and “loading part” are construed as indefinite as the disclosure lacks sufficient supporting structure to fully define the terms in the inventive concept. Applicant’s disclosure does not contain further information due to the use of solely functional language with a lack of corresponding structure. While “mobility apparatus” does refer to further structure that is defined, such as “cargo part” (Page 8, lines 14-16), it also refers to structure that is not, such as “base part” and “loading part”. Additionally, Applicant’s disclosure does refer to “mobility devices” throughout the specification sections, but for the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner is expected to not assume two different, though similar, terms are one and the same. It is recommended that Applicant avoid terminology changes to prevent ambiguity.
While “base part” includes references to “a device for driving” and “a driver’s seat”, as well as “input/output device” and “first controller”, the former two only add additional functional language as a functional part without structure, and the latter two are merely tangential elements that do not define the “base part”, regardless of any structural definition they contain. Thus, “base part” lacks further necessary structural definition. Examples of meaningful structural terms in this context could be “cab”, “mover”, “truck”, etc., or other suitable definitive elements as Applicant sees fit.
While “loading part” mentions language such as “detachably coupled” to the “cargo part”, as well as “disposed behind the driver’s seat”, the former is merely functional language, while the latter is a locational reference to an item that is itself not defined by more than functional language without structure. Thus, “loading part” lacks further necessary structural definition. Examples of meaningful structural terms in this context could be “hitch”, “coupler”, “buffer”, etc., or other suitable definitive elements as Applicant sees fit.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-19, as they are dependent on Independent Claims 1 and 11 respectively, they fall under the same argument as above and so are treated as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadaba et al. (US 20160224930, hereinafter Kadaba) in view of Crawford, JR et al. (US 20210395011, hereinafter Crawford).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kadaba discloses a mobility apparatus (or delivery vehicle as described hereinafter) that may include a non-limited embodiment encompassing a base part, a loading part, and a cargo part, along with a product identifier configured to recognize objects being received or released. Kadaba does not explicitly teach the base part with a loading part for detachably coupling to a cargo part. However, Crawford — in the same field of endeavor, package handling and delivery — describes a base part with a loading part detachably coupled to a cargo part, wherein a product identifier exists:
A mobility apparatus [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0006 “The system includes a vehicle having a cargo area with an access port, and a plurality of storage locations”, Para. 0012-0013, and Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 400 “Delivery vehicle”, and at least Crawford: Title and Abstract sections “delivery device”] comprising:
a base part including a loading part [See at least Crawford: Para. 0006 “transportation platform” and Para. 0008 “the transportation platform includes a cargo receiving area connector”]; and
a cargo part detachably coupled to the loading part and defining a space configured to receive one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0050 “a vehicle 400 may be a tractor, a truck, a car, a trailer, a tractor and trailer combination…and/or any other form of object for moving or transporting people and/or items (e.g., one or more packages, parcels, bags, containers, loads…)” and Para. 0057-0059, and at least Crawford: Para. 0006 “modular cargo container for enclosing cargo”],
wherein the cargo part includes an product identifier configured to, based on the one or more objects being received or released, recognize the one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0071-0072, Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 450, Para. 0077 “a data capture device 450 associated with the vehicle 400 captures indicia from the item. The indicia may include identification of characteristics of the items (e.g., dimensions, weight, fragile, etc.). In other embodiments, the data capture device 450 captures a unique identifier associated with the item which is communicated to the controller” and 0089, and at least Crawford: Para. 0173 “Other optional sensors may include…other suitable sensors, such as proximity sensors, light detection sensors, or microphones, to name but a few, may be included and associated with the sensor module” and Fig. 13, Ref. Numeral 600 and 1300].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobility apparatus that may comprise a base part, loading part, and cargo part as taught by Kadaba with the teachings of Crawford to explicitly describe a loading part with a connection between the base part and a cargo part when coupled, as well as locate the product identifier, described in both references, inside the cargo part to identify the contents of that cargo part.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated said teachings for the purpose of creating a modular, disconnected cargo system, with each cargo part able to recognize and communicate details of its contents as needed to expedite the delivery process, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, while Kadaba teaches a base part with an input/output device configured to display delivery information and receive user input, as well as controllers for collecting and communicating data with other associated devices, they fail to explicitly describe a controller with a function including recognizing an operable coupling between the loading part and cargo part. However, Crawford specifically addresses this concept with a controller and an associated power/data connector:
the base part further comprises:
an input/output device configured to (i) display a delivery destination at which the one or more objects are to be delivered and a delivery route and (ii) receive information from a user [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044, Para. 0047-0049, Para. 0052-0053, “The one or more location sensors 120 may also communicate with the mapping computing entity, the data collection device 130, mobile computing entity 105, and/or similar computing entities”, Para, 0063 “the controller 140 may comprise a user interface… the user interface may be an application, browser, user interface, dashboard, webpage…executing on and/or accessible via the controller 140 to interact with and/or cause display of information from the carrier server 100 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, Para. 0071 “the controller 140 communicates with the data capture device 32 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, and Para. 0081-0083]; and
a first controller configured to recognize that the cargo part is coupled to the loading part and control the input/output device [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0051-0052 “The data collection device 130 may transmit/send the data to the mobile computing entity 105 and/or various other computing entities via one of several communication methods”, Para. 0055, and Fig. 4, Ref. Numerals 130 and 230, and at least Crawford: Para. 0008 “a cargo receiving area connector for coupling to the bottom connector of the first modular cargo container for transferring and receiving power and data therebetween…a transportation microcomputer to operate the transportation platform”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the delivery vehicle of Kadaba, containing an input/output device in the base part, with the capability of displaying the delivery information, with a controller capable of recognizing the cargo part coupled and its contents in order to use that for information for the control of the input/output device, as taught by Crawford.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the above teachings to automatically display delivery information on an existing input/output device, based on cargo contents once a cargo part is confirmed to be operatively coupled, so that delivery information can be verified and the delivery process expedited, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, Kadaba describes a cargo part with a second controller for capturing and managing cargo object information via a communication interface and a base part with a first controller. However, Crawford explicitly teaches what Kadaba lacks, a connection between two normally separated controllers for the exchange of that information collected by the cargo controller to the base controller:
the cargo part further comprises a second controller configured to communicate with the first controller to transmit, to the first controller, information regarding the one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0055, Para. 0062 “the storage locations may be activated/controlled by a controller 140 mounted within the vehicle 400. The controller 140 may be in wired or wireless communication with the storage locations…the controller 140 stores the identification of the items, where the items are positioned within the vehicle and when they are removed from the vehicle”, Para. 0063, 0071-0072, 0081-0083, and 0096, and at least Crawford: Para. 0040 and Para. 0062-0071 “each modular cargo container defines a container interior and includes: a cargo container microcomputer for receiving and processing commands received from the system”, Para. 0099, and Para. 0173 “A sensor module connector 1330 is connected to an internal sensor module connector 1340 for transferring the received data from the sensors to the microcomputer 1010 of the modular cargo container 200”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the delivery vehicle of Kadaba that contains a product identifier and associated controller in the cargo part, with Crawford’s communication system to transmit that product information from the cargo part to a first controller, connected to the input/output device in the base part, so that the cargo information could be sent from the former to the latter, when coupled, and used by the first controller in controlling the input/output device.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the multiple controllers of both references with a dedicated communication system for product information to pass from the cargo part second controller to the base part first controller, for the purpose of allowing interchangeable cargo parts not tied to a specific base part and featuring the capability to communicate contents, as recognized by a product identifier and controller, to a base part that they are currently coupled to, for increasing delivery flexibility and efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4, Kadaba teaches a controller or controller set for receiving object information recognized and sent by the product identifier, and using that information for delivery information display based on the product information:
the first controller is further configured to:
based the one or more objects being received at the cargo part, receive information recognized by the product identifier through the second controller [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0063 “the controller 140 may include: (1) a processing element that communicates with other elements via a system interface or bus; (2) a user interface; (3) transitory and non-transitory memory; and (4) a communications interface”, Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 450, and Para. 0089], and
control the input/output device so that the input/output device displays the delivery destination and the delivery route according to the information recognized by the product identifier [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044 and 0047-0049, Para. 0051 “The data collection device 130 may…transmit/send the data to the mobile computing entity 105 and/or various other computing entities via one of several communication methods”, Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 230, and Para. 0053, 0056, 0063, and 0081-0083].
Regarding Claim 5, Kadaba teaches a controller or controller set configured to transmit product identifier information to an external server and receive delivery destination/route information in kind based on that information:
the first controller is further configured to:
transmit, to an external server, the information recognized by the product identifier [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0052 “the data collection device 130 may include, be associated with, or be in communication with one or more processors 200”, 0053, 0056, 0066-0068 “The captured shipping indicia are transmitted to the one or more carrier systems 100. The one or more carrier systems 100 identify destination information (either captured or determined using the item/shipment identifier) and compare the destination address against a dispatch plan to determine which route/vehicle is assigned to deliver to the destination address at Step 620”, 0077, and 0089]; and
receive, from the external server, information regarding the delivery destination and the delivery route for the one or more objects [See previous limitation references for this claim].
Regarding Claim 9, Kadaba teaches a controller configured to store product identification information:
the second controller is configured to, based on the one or more objects being received at the cargo part, store information recognized by the product identifier [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0062 “the controller 140 stores the identification of the items, where the items are positioned within the vehicle and when they are removed from the vehicle.), 0072 (the controller 140 stores the location of the item in memory for later retrieval when the item is to be delivered” and 0091 ].
Regarding Claim 10, Kadaba teaches a controller or controller set for transmitting stored object identification information between controllers, though it does not explicitly describe doing so with the use of a detachable loading part. However, Crawford teaches this same concept based on the contents of one of a plurality of cargo containers:
the second controller is configured to, based on the cargo part being coupled to the loading part, transmit, to the first controller, the stored information regarding the one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0063, 0081-0083, and at least Crawford: Para. 0071 “the data transmitted to the cargo container microcomputer from the system processing unit includes a delivery destination address corresponding to a specific loaded cargo”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the intra-controller communication/transmission system based on detachable cargo part as described by Crawford into the delivery vehicle of Kadaba to allow for transmission of the stored product information from one of a plurality of containers, whenever they are respectively coupled to the base part.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize said teachings in this manner to allow for a base part to receive stored cargo information automatically from any cargo part that it couples to, so that information could be immediately utilized for expedited and efficient delivery routing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Kadaba describes methods for controlling, loading, and unloading the delivery vehicle comprising a base part, loading part, and cargo part along with transmission of object information from one controller to another in the process of delivering the items. It does not describe an explicit step of coupling the cargo part to the loading part nor object information transmission between the two parts. However, Crawford — in the same field of endeavor, package handling and delivery — describes a base part with a loading part detachably coupled to a cargo part, and the method for transmitting data between the two:
A method of controlling a mobility apparatus [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0006 “The system includes a vehicle having a cargo area with an access port, and a plurality of storage locations”, Para. 0012-0013, and Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 400 “Delivery vehicle”, and at least Crawford: Title and Abstract sections “delivery device”], the method comprising:
receiving, at a cargo part, one or more objects for delivery [See at least Kadaba: Title and Abstract sections, Para. 0015-0016, and Fig. 7-8, and at least Crawford: Title and Abstract sections, Para. 0007-0010 and 0160];
coupling the cargo part to a loading part of a base part of the mobility apparatus [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0050 “a vehicle 400 may be a tractor, a truck, a car, a trailer, a tractor and trailer combination…and/or any other form of object for moving or transporting people and/or items (e.g., one or more packages, parcels, bags, containers, loads…)” and Para. 0057-0059, and at least Crawford: Para. 0006 “transportation platform”, “modular cargo container for enclosing cargo, the modular cargo container defining a container interior for enclosing cargo therein”, and Para. 0008 “the transportation platform includes a cargo receiving area connector”];
transmitting, based on the cargo part being coupled to the loading part, information regarding the one or more objects to the base part [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0055, 0062-0063 “the storage locations may be activated/controlled by a controller 140 mounted within the vehicle 400. The controller 140 may be in wired or wireless communication with the storage locations…the controller 140 stores the identification of the items, where the items are positioned within the vehicle and when they are removed from the vehicle”, 0071-0072, 0081-0083, and 0096, and at least Crawford: Para. 0040 and Para. 0062-0071 “each modular cargo container defines a container interior and includes: a cargo container microcomputer for receiving and processing commands received from the system) 0173 A sensor module connector 1330 is connected to an internal sensor module connector 1340 for transferring the received data from the sensors to the microcomputer 1010 of the modular cargo container 200”, and Para. 0099]; and
delivering the one or more objects by moving the base part [See at least Kadaba, and Crawford: Title and Abstract sections].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the methods described in Kadaba to receive cargo for delivery at a cargo part with the teachings of Crawford to couple it to a base part, transmit the information from the systems of the cargo part to the systems of the base part, and use that information for delivery purposes.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings described by the references for a method of product delivery utilizing modular cargo parts with stored respective cargo information, as it may have increased delivery efficiency and flexibility over previous/other delivery methods, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Kadaba discloses a method for capturing, managing, and storing cargo object information, as well as a general communication interface for between controllers. However, Crawford explicitly teaches what Kadaba lacks, a connection between two normally separated controllers for the exchange of that stored information from the cargo controller to the base controller:
the cargo part includes a second controller at which information regarding the one or more objects is stored, and the base part includes a first controller at which information regarding the one or more objects is received from the second controller [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0055, 0062-0063 “the storage locations may be activated/controlled by a controller 140 mounted within the vehicle 400. The controller 140 may be in wired or wireless communication with the storage locations…the controller 140 stores the identification of the items, where the items are positioned within the vehicle and when they are removed from the vehicle”, 0071-0072, 0081-0083, and 0096, and at least Crawford: Para. 0040 and Para. 0062-0071 “each modular cargo container defines a container interior and includes: a cargo container microcomputer for receiving and processing commands received from the system”, 0099, and 0173 “A sensor module connector 1330 is connected to an internal sensor module connector 1340 for transferring the received data from the sensors to the microcomputer 1010 of the modular cargo container 200”], and
transmitting the information regarding the one or more objects includes establishing communication connection between the first controller and the second controller to transmit the information [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0063 “the controller 140 may include: (1) a processing element that communicates with other elements via a system interface or bus; (2) a user interface; (3) transitory and non-transitory memory; and (4) a communications interface”, and 0089, and at least Crawford: Para. 0008 “a cargo receiving area connector for coupling to the bottom connector of the first modular cargo container for transferring and receiving power and data therebetween…a transportation microcomputer to operate the transportation platform”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previously mentioned method of Kadaba to include a first controller in the base part and second controller in the cargo part with an intra-controller communication system as taught by Crawford, and using said systems to transmit stored object information, respective to a cargo part, to the base part when coupled for delivery of said contents.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method with the mentioned systems to make it automated and/or flexible, reducing product verification time and increasing delivery efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13, Kadaba describes a method involving an input/output device configured to display delivery information along with a controller for the device that displays the delivery information. It does not describe a method for using information based on and communicated from a detachable cargo container. However, Crawford does teach the concept with respect to delivery information based on the currently coupled cargo container:
the base part further comprises an input/output device configured to display a delivery destination at which the one or more objects are to be delivered and a delivery route [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044, 0047-0049, 0052-0053 “The one or more location sensors 120 may also communicate with the mapping computing entity, the data collection device 130, mobile computing entity 105, and/or similar computing entities…The one or more location sensors 120 may be used to receive latitude, longitude, altitude, heading or direction, geocode, course, position, time, and/or speed data”, 0063 “the controller 140 may comprise a user interface…accessible via the controller 140 to interact with and/or cause display of information from the carrier server 100 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, 0071 “the controller 140 communicates with the data capture device 32 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, and 0081-0083],
the first controller is configured to control the input/output device [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044, 0047-0049, 0051-0053 “The data collection device 130 may collect telematics data (including location data) and transmit/send the data to the mobile computing entity 105 and/or various other computing entities via one of several communication methods”, Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 230, and Para. 0056, 0063, and 0081-0083], and
delivering the one or more objects includes displaying the delivery destination and the delivery route on the input/output device [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044, 0047-0049, Para. 0052-0053 “The one or more location sensors 120 may also communicate with the mapping computing entity, the data collection device 130, mobile computing entity 105, and/or similar computing entities”, 0063 “the controller 140 may comprise a user interface…accessible via the controller 140 to interact with and/or cause display of information from the carrier server 100 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, 0071 “the controller 140 communicates with the data capture device 32 and/or the mobile computing entity 105”, and 0081-0083, and at least Crawford: Para. 0008 and Para. 0071, “the data transmitted to the cargo container microcomputer from the system processing unit includes a delivery destination address corresponding to a specific loaded cargo”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method described by Kadaba of having the base part comprising an input/output device for displaying delivery information for the objects contained therein, with the method described by Crawford for the transmission of the information of the objects stored in the currently coupled cargo part, and have that information controlled by the first controller configured to display the information obtained therefrom in the process of delivering the objects to their destinations.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these teachings into the previous method described for the purpose of enhancing available information to the operator/deliverer about the contents of the cargo part to increase delivery efficiency and transparency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, Kadaba describes a method of using a product identifier located in the cargo part for inputting object information:
storing of the one or more objects includes inputting information regarding the one or more objects through a product identifier disposed in the cargo part [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0071-0072, 0077, and 0089 and Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 450].
Regarding Claim 15, Kadaba discloses a method for using the product identifier to input object release and confirming delivery destination details match:
delivering the one or more objects further comprises:
inputting information that the one or more objects are released through the product identifier [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0029 “The mobile computing entity 105 may include a data capture device and a user interface. The data capture device 32 may be a barcode or MaxiCode scanning device, an RFID interrogator, a camera, or other data capture device”, 0048, 0068, 0087-0089 “the driver may enter delivery information or other identifying information into the mobile computing entity 105…a driver may use a mobile computing entity 105 to capture information concerning the item (e.g., unique identifier, characteristics, etc.) and communicate this information to the controller 140 and/or the carrier systems 100”, and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 105]; and
confirming, based on the one or more objects being released, whether the one or more objects and the delivery destination are matched [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0084 “the triggering event may be when the vehicle 400 is within a threshold distance from the delivery location for an item. In some cases, the triggering event may be when the vehicle is stopped at the delivery location...based on location determining devices (e.g., within threshold distance, no movement for threshold time frame, etc.) and/or input from the driver via the driver's mobile computing entity (e.g., driver requesting retrieval of specific item)”].
Regarding Claim 16, Kadaba discloses a method for confirming, via a controller and product identifier, the correct delivery destination by determining current destination and the base part are within a predetermined range:
confirming whether the one or more objects and the delivery destination are matched comprises confirming, by the first controller, whether the delivery destination of the product recognized by the product identifier and a location of the base part are within a predetermined range [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0044 0047-0049, 0051-0053 “The data collection device 130 may collect telematics data (including location data) and transmit/send the data to the mobile computing entity 105 and/or various other computing entities via one of several communication methods…The one or more location sensors 120 may also communicate with the mapping computing entity, the data collection device 130, mobile computing entity 105, and/or similar computing entities”, Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 230, and Para. 0056, 0063, and 0081-0084 “when the vehicle 400 is within a threshold distance from the delivery location for an item”].
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadaba et al. (US 20160224930, hereinafter Kadaba) in view of Crawford, JR et al. (US 20210395011, hereinafter Crawford), and further in view of Daniarov (US 20150186842, hereinafter Daniarov).
Regarding Claim 6, Kadaba addresses having a user terminal and a system for communication between it and any associated computing entities, and the user terminal may include a data capture device, but it fails to specifically mention using these devices for image capture related to delivery completion. Crawford also mentions user interfaces associated with delivery, along with communication, verification, and image capture systems for that same purpose, but does not explicitly describe a user terminal utilized to capture an image related to delivery completion. However, Daniarov teaches a handheld scanning/user terminal with communication links used specifically to capture package and delivery location data:
The mobility apparatus of claim 3, wherein the cargo part further comprises a terminal communicator configured to communicate with a user terminal associated with the user and receive, from the user terminal, an image related to completion of the delivery [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0029 “The mobile computing entity 105 may include a data capture device and a user interface. The data capture device 32 may be a barcode or MaxiCode scanning device, an RFID interrogator, a camera, or other data capture device”, 0048, 0068, and 0087-0089 “the driver may enter delivery information or other identifying information into the mobile computing entity 105…a driver may use a mobile computing entity 105 to capture information concerning the item (e.g., unique identifier, characteristics, etc.) and communicate this information to the controller 140 and/or the carrier systems 100”, and Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 105, and at least Crawford: Para. 0172 “The sensor module 600 includes a number of sensors, such as a camera or image sensor 1200 that is shown on the outside of the sensor module 600 and modular cargo container 200”, 0187 “a user interface may be incorporated into the modular cargo container 200, or the transportation platform coupled thereto, that is configured to receive an input signal signifying the process of unloading or loading is complete” and 0203, and at least Daniarov: Abstract and Para. 0014-0018 “system 100 may include a handheld scanning device 105, communications links 110 that communicate with handheld scanner 105, portable device 150, and image database server 160. Handheld scanning device 105 may include an integrated or separate photographing device such as a camera for photographing one or more digital photographs of a parcel and one or more photographs of the location where the parcel was delivered”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the delivery vehicle with a base part, detachable cargo part, and loading part along with a plurality of controllers and devices connected to them, including a user terminal and communication systems, as described by Kadaba in view of Crawford, with the capabilities of the user terminal or handheld scanner as taught by Daniarov for capture and communication of an image for delivery completion.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate said capability teachings into the delivery vehicle and its associated parts to increase transparency and satisfaction with customers as well as decrease delivery errors and liability, overall increasing delivery efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, Kadaba and Crawford disclose controllers in communication with user terminals (see response to Claim 6), but they fail to teach a controller connected for the purpose of comparing a received image with a delivery completed product. However, Daniarov does disclose a handheld scanning/user terminal, controllers, and image database, for comparison purposes, which may be local or remote:
The mobility apparatus of claim 6, wherein the second controller is configured to receive the image from the terminal communicator and compare the image with a delivery completed product [See at least Daniarov Para. 0014-0019 “communications network 120 and communication links 110 that may link and provide communication to and from handheld scanner 105, portable device 150, and image database server 160 via communications network 120. System 100 may also include portable device 150 and image database server 160. Portable device 150 may be any device that is capable of receiving and displaying digital textual and graphical electronic information…an image database server 160 that stores and indexes the image based on the identification data. Typically, a plurality of images of the parcel and photographic evidence of its delivery location are sent to database 160 depicting the parcel and its locations from different perspectives”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the delivery vehicle and associated equipment and capabilities of Kadaba in view of Crawford with the teachings of Daniarov with respect to further equipment and capabilities, including an image database in communication with a controller for image comparison purposes.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the equipment and capabilities as described to further decrease delivery errors and liability by using a verification system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, while Kadaba and Crawford teach user terminals, controller systems, and communication between controllers and external servers or entities, they fail to disclose a controller and/or server system to transmit delivery images to a customer. However, Daniarov teaches a delivery system comprising image capture, controllers, communication links, and external servers with the purpose of sending delivery completion images and data to a respective customer:
The mobility apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first controller is configured to receive the image from the second controller and transmit the received image to an external server to be transmitted to a customer of the delivery completed product [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0087-0089, and at least Crawford: Para. 0172, 0187, and 0203, as well as at least Daniarov: Para. 0020-0027 “an automatic email notification message is sent along with the delivery notification and photographic evidence of delivery. Other alternatives include sending messages using short message service (SMS) to a cell phone, instant messaging (IM) over the Internet, facsimile transmission, or other forms of electronic communication may be utilized…the interested party receives a notification notifying them that delivery of the parcel has taken place”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the delivery vehicle and its associated systems, including communication systems and image capture capabilities, as taught by Kadaba and Crawford in view of the teachings of Daniarov to configure a controller to transmit any received images to an external server wherein a customer can be notified and/or access said images.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these capabilities and systems as disclosed to increase delivery transparency and customer satisfaction as well as provide record keeping services for enhanced delivery efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Kadaba in view of Crawford discloses various controllers and internal/external communication systems for transmission of information related to stored objects as well as methods for their use in that endeavor, but fails to disclose a method for image recognition of completed delivery products and transmission of related images to respective customers. However, Daniarov teaches what is lacking, a system and associated method for delivery product image capture, recognition, and transmission:
recognizing an image related to completion of the delivery of the one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0063, 0071-0072, 0081-0083, and 0096, and at least Crawford: Para. 0008, 0040, 0062-0071, 0099, and 0173, as well as at least Daniarov: Abstract and Para. 0014-0018 “Upon delivery, the user may scan the package using the afore-identified means of obtaining information about the package, its contents, location, and may obtain photographic or video information about the delivered parcel. The image and identification data are sent to an image database server 160 that stores and indexes the image based on the identification data. Typically, a plurality of images of the parcel and photographic evidence of its delivery location are sent to database 160 depicting the parcel and its locations from different perspectives”, 0020 “such information may be graphically received and displayed to a sender or recipient of a parcel and may be correlated with photographic evidence of the parcel's”, and 0025-0026, and Fig. 4]; and
transmitting the image to an outside of the mobility apparatus so that the image is transmitted from the first controller to a customer of the delivered one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0089, and at least Crawford: Para. 0173, 0187, and 0203, as well as at least Daniarov: Para. 0014-0022 “The image database 160 also maintains (or is able to access) contact information for the sender, receiver, and other relevant individuals…the image database 160 sends a delivery notification to portable device 150 via communications links 110 and communications network 120. Typically, the interested party receives a notification notifying them that delivery of the parcel has taken place”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the method of control and use of the delivery vehicle and its associated systems including product identifier, user terminal, and communication systems, as taught by Kadaba in view Crawford, with the systems, capabilities, and methods as taught by Daniarov for object image recognition and transmission from a controller to an external recipient, including a customer.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these teachings into the method for delivery verification purposes and customer notification and satisfaction, increasing delivery efficiency and reducing errors, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Kadaba in view of Crawford teaches methods for delivery, image or information entry for the delivered object, and systems for execution of this method, but does not teach image matching or comparison with product information. However, Daniarov does disclose a method for the above:
The method of claim 17, further comprising matching, by the second controller, the image and the delivered one or more objects [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0063, 0071-0072, 0081-0083, and 0096, and at least Crawford: Para. 0008, 0040, 0062-0071, 0099, and 0173, as well as at least Daniarov: Para. 0014-0019 “communications network 120 and communication links 110 that may link and provide communication to and from handheld scanner 105, portable device 150, and image database server 160 via communications network 120. System 100 may also include portable device 150 and image database server 160. Portable device 150 may be any device that is capable of receiving and displaying digital textual and graphical electronic information…an image database server 160 that stores and indexes the image based on the identification data. Typically, a plurality of images of the parcel and photographic evidence of its delivery location are sent to database 160 depicting the parcel and its locations from different perspectives”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methods as disclosed by Kadaba in view of Crawford with the additional methods taught by Daniarov with respect to image comparison and verification as part of the delivery process.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these systems and steps for their use into the method as described to match delivery information to the delivered product to verify the correct item has been delivered to the correct location and reduce errors, redeliveries, and liability, increasing delivery efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Kadaba and Crawford discloses methods for delivery, communication of delivery information, and user/customer interaction with the delivery system. However, they do not explicitly describe a controller configured to transmit delivery completion images or information to a customer. However, Daniarov teaches what they lack:
The method of claim 18, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the image to an external server so that the image is transmitted to the customer [See at least Kadaba: Para. 0089, and at least Crawford: Para. 0173, 0187, and 0203, as well as at least Daniarov: Para. 0020-0027 “an automatic email notification message is sent along with the delivery notification and photographic evidence of delivery. Other alternatives include sending messages using short message service (SMS) to a cell phone, instant messaging (IM) over the Internet, facsimile transmission, or other forms of electronic communication may be utilized…the interested party receives a notification notifying them that delivery of the parcel has taken place”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the communication systems and the method for their use of delivery information as described by Kadabain view of Crawford, in concert with teachings from Daniarov for external transmission and customer notification of package delivery completion.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these steps into the systems and method as described for the purpose of image and delivery information storage and customer access to it, increasing delivery transparency, efficiency, and customer satisfaction, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to F JERVIS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0730 - 1530.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/F JERVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 22 Jan 26
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655