Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 6/2/2026 has been considered.
Claims 37 and 40 are canceled. Claims 21-36, 38-39 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-36, 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton (U.S. Patent Publication No. US20030004747), in view of Staton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,317,927).
Regarding claim 21, 29, 38, Burton teaches
a memory that stores computer instructions; and a processor that performs actions when executing the computer instructions, the actions including:
identifying ready-mix concrete for delivery from a first location to a second location, wherein the ready-mix concrete includes a plurality of portions that are aggregated when delivered to the second location; (pre-mix concrete delivery to bld sites, [2-7], [20, 23]),
tracking a location of a mobile computing device using GPS coordinate data; (truck with GPS [3, 22, 37], GPS tracking facilities, broadcast GPS coordinates, position coordinates determined using GPS techniques, [3, 20, 22, 37, 39].
receiving a request to proceed with pick up of a portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete; (monitoring delivery, an electronic proof of delivery system, [23-25]),
causing a ticket corresponding to the portion to be displayed to the user on the mobile computing device; instructing the user to pick up the portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the ticket;
(the driver being provided electronically with delivery information, [25], scheduled to load, [27-30])
updating the ticket with information regarding the portion picked up by the user; receiving an indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location; and in response to receiving the indication that the portion has been delivered to the second location, automatically dispatch a subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location, (a customer accessible data file regularly updated to provide customer information on orders and deliveries, [20], when delivery is commenced and when it finishes, and the system can then re-estimate the return time for the truck at the depot and schedule its next delivery run either to the same site or another job entirely, [25]).
Burton substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose defining a first geozone for the first location using a first geofence; defining a second geozone for the second location using a second geofence;
determining a first number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence of the first geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude of the GPS coordinate data constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device to the first location;
in response to determining that the first number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence is odd, determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone;
in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the first geozone. determining a second number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence of the first geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude of the GPS coordinate data constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device through the first geozone; in response to determining that the second number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the first geofence is even, determining that the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone;
in response to determining the mobile computing device has exited the first geozone, determining a number of times the mobile computing device has intersected the second geofence of the second geozone by holding either the longitude or the latitude of the GPS coordinate data constant during the tracking of the location of the mobile computing device from the first location to the second location; in response to determining that the number of times the mobile computing device has crossed the second geofence is odd, determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone; and in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the second geozone. Burton teaches truck arrival at plant via GPS and stationary detection [22, 25]. Burton does not teach geofence boundary intersection and event-triggered entry detection. Burton teaches the system records arrival at a site by reference to broadcast GPS coordinates of the site together with a sensor monitoring that the vehicle is stationary, [22, 25], a truck crossing a "geofence" at the batching plant and an onboard GPS/radio system sends data on position and time to the dynamic scheduler as shown in FIG. 1, [37, 39].
However, Staton teaches geographical zones and boundaries, Col.5-6, the zones and boundaries allow a user having a PDA 105 to receive information of the location of another user wearing a second PDA. Staton further teaches the PDA can calculate its position in relation to a geographical zone simply by utilizing GPS data…PDA calculates its position based on the GPS data and "knows" whether it is in a new location. The data obtained from the GPS receiver 215 is utilized geocode the position of the PDA. The position of each PDA can be geocoded periodically and then calculated to be within the geographical zone. Each geographical zone has associated coordinate data which is compared with the data obtained from the GPS receiver 215 to determine whether the PDA is in the geographical zone…The geofencing software utilizes GPS data, geographical zones loaded on the PDA, and preconfigured event data to analyze if a entering or leaving a zone is an event in itself, see at least col. 28, ln 18-40, Col.26, 24-50.
Stanton further teaches A position fix 520 in the pixel map 500 is mapped from the current geographical location of the PDA 105. A test can be performed to for each zone for each position fix 520 in order to determine if the PDA 105 is inside the zone 515 or outside the zone 515. Thus, for each zone 515, the test starts with a simple check if the position fix 520 is inside or outside the pixel map 500. If the current position fix 520 is inside the pixel map 500, a more extensive test is completed by plotting the position fix 520 inside the bounding box and drawing four lines in four directions (north, south, east and west) from the position fix 520 to the borders of the pixel map 500. Subsequently, the number of zone boundary crossings 530 is counted for each of the four lines 525, Col.16 ln 57-67, Col.6 , entry-exit Fig 5AB. Multiple boundary crossing tests are performed for accuracy. If a given line 525 crosses an odd number of zone boundaries 510, the position fix 520 is considered inside the zone 515. If a given line 525 crosses an even number of zone boundaries, the position fix 520 is considered outside the zone 515. If at least three out of the four boundary crossing tests agree, the zone boundary crossings 530 are used to determine if the position fix 520 is inside or outside the zone. If three out of the four boundary tests do not agree, the position fix 520 is considered outside the zone 515, Col.17 ln 1-24.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Burton, to include the above limitations, as taught by Staton, in order to efficiently monitor individual devices, (Staton, see background). Burton uses GPS tracking and site arrival detection, while Staton provides well known geofence based entry/exit detection using boundary intersections. Both references use GPS coordinate data to determine the location of a mobile device or vehicle relative to a geographical boundary. Staton applied its odd/even boundary crossing test to a GPS derived position fix. Substituting one known detection method (GPS threshold) with another method (geofence) is a predictable variation. Burton uses mapping and route optimization and combining with Staton’s geofence yields predictable results, improving accuracy of entry and exit detection. Staton teaches multiple boundary crossing tests are performed for accuracy, Col.17 ln 1-24.
Regarding claim 22, 30, Burton teaches the processor causes the ticket to be displayed to the user on the mobile computing device by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, [23-25], however, does not explicitly disclose the further actions including: causing previous and subsequent delivery information to be displayed with the ticket to the user on the mobile computing device. Staton teaches displaying tasks, Fig. 5A-C, Col.15-16.
Regarding claim 23, 31, Burton teaches the processor automatically dispatches the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: generating a second ticket corresponding to the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete; causing the second ticket to be displayed to a second user of a second mobile computing device; and instructing the second user to pick up the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the second ticket, delivery address, [23-25].
Regarding claim 24, 32, 39, Burton teaches the processor automatically dispatches the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete to be picked up at the first location for delivery to the second location by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: of the ready-mix concrete; causing the second ticket to be displayed to a second user of a second mobile computing device; and instructing the second user to pick up the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions of the ready-mix concrete in accordance with the second ticket, [4, 20, 23, 47]. Burton does not explicitly teach generating a second ticket corresponding to the subsequent portion of the plurality of portions. Staton teaches multiple devices zone triggered tickets assignments, Col.6.
Regarding claim 25, 33, Burton teaches the processor receives the request to proceed with pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, the further actions including: receiving user input from the mobile computing device indicating that the user is ready to pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete, (driver input confirming ready status, [39]).
Regarding claim 26, 34, Burton teaches the processor receives the request to proceed with pick up of the portion of the plurality of portions for the ready-mix concrete by performing further actions when executing the computer instructions, (device located within truck cab, [37]. Staton teaches receiving an indication that the mobile computing device is tethered to a vehicle and ready to pick up, (device association checks for zone-event validity, Col.6).
Regarding claim 27, 35, Burton teaches tracking multiple trucks, [23-25], however, Staton teaches displaying a map that shows locations of each portion of the plurality of portions in process of being delivered to from the first location to the second location, Fig. 5A-C.
Regarding claim 28, 36, Burton does not teach determining that the mobile computing device has entered a third geozone; and in response to determining that the mobile computing device has entered the third geozone, triggering an alert that the portion of the plurality of plurality of portions for the bulk perishable product has entered an informational geozone. Staton teaches geographical zones in which multiple PDA’s may operate, Fig. 8A.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered.
Arguments regarding 35 USC 101 rejection.
The claims integrate the concepts into a practical application. The claims recite a specific GPS-based geofence processing technique that holds either the longitude or latitude of GPS coordinate data constant, counts intersection with geofence and uses odd/even party to determine whether the mobile computing device has entered or exited defined locating and delivery geozones. The specification supports implementation see [10, 70-71, 93-94] and in [55]. Accordingly, the claims recite a particular technological implementation of GPS processing that controls delivery. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Arguments regarding 35 USC 103 rejection.
Applicant argues that Staton does not teach holding the longitude or latitude of GPS coordinate data constant, counting geofence intersections and determining entry or exit based on whether the count is odd or even.
Examiner does not agree. The rejection relies on the combined teachings of Burton and Staton, not the Staton alone. Burton teaches GPS tracking of ready-mix concrete trucks from a batching plant geofence to a building site geofence including detecting arrival and departure, [20-23, 37-39]. Staton also teaches a specific GPS based odd/even.
Staton teaches mapping a GPS derived position fix of PDA 105, drawing lines north, west, south, east from the position fix and counting zone-boundary crossings along each line. A north/south line holds longitude constant and east/west line latitude constant. Staton teaches that an odd number of crossings means position is inside the zone and an even number means it is outside, see rejection above. Staton teaches that the position fixes are obtained using GPS data and the software uses GPS data to determine zone entry and exit, specific GPS based odd/even boundary crossing.
Such combination teaches the above limitations and the rejection is maintained.
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 MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights