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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 05/08/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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.
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.
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:
Claims 1-10:
“GPS module”. . . configured to determine
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . determine a motion vector associated with the mobile delivery device; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a motion vector associated with a mobile delivery device; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
. . . store a plurality of geo-fences for delivery points on a plurality of delivery routes; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
identify, from the plurality of geo-fences, a first set of geo-fences which mobile delivery device has exited and an order in which the first set of geo-fences were exited; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a first set of geofences that a device has exited and an order in which they were exited; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
identify, from the plurality of geo-fences based on the motion vector and the geo-location, a second set of geo-fences which the mobile delivery device is approaching; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a second set of geofences that a device is approaching based on a motion vector and location information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
determine, based on the identified first and second sets of geo-fences, a traversed sequence of delivery points; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a traversed sequence of delivery points based on first and second sets of geofences; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
determine whether the traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to an assigned delivery route; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to an assigned delivery route; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
and generate a notification based on the determination that the traversed delivery points do not correspond to the assigned delivery route. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a notification in response to a lack of correspondence between geofences and a delivery route; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers)
The claims, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to perform the above steps using generic computer components, the above steps could each be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, the claims, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform these steps in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a mobile delivery device comprising a vector calculation module configured to (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a GPS module configured to determine a geo-location of the mobile delivery device as the mobile delivery device traverses a delivery route; (claims 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; regarding the determination of the geo-location as the device traverses a route, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a GPS device since the device acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system and since the limitation merely claims the solution or outcome of the collection of data without giving details as to how such collection is accomplished)
one or more processors configured to: (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
retrieve, from the GPS module, breadcrumb data for the mobile delivery device; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in the form of pre-solution data processing since the retrieval of breadcrumb data is used nowhere else in the claims and appears wholly disembodied from the other elements of the claim)
a geo-fence database configured to (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The following limitations have been characterized above as extra-solution activity:
retrieve, from the GPS module, breadcrumb data for the mobile delivery device; (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory)
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 12:
wherein the processor is configured to determine that the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned route when three out of five delivery points in the traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to the assigned delivery route.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to an assigned delivery route based on three out of five points corresponding to the delivery route; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Claims 3 and 13:
further comprising a route database storing a plurality delivery points and a delivery point sequence for each of a plurality of delivery routes.
Regarding the addition of a route database, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Regarding the storing step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Claims 4 and 14:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive from the mobile delivery device the assigned delivery route for the mobile delivery device.
Regarding the receipt of this information from a mobile delivery device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Regarding the receiving step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Claims 5 and 15:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the traversed sequence of delivery points with at least a portion of the sequence of delivery points corresponding to the assigned delivery route.
Regarding the comparing step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Claims 6 and 16:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to the assigned delivery route based on the comparison of the traversed sequence of delivery points and the sequence of delivery points corresponding to the assigned delivery route.
Regarding the determination step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a route corresponds to an assigned route based on this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
Claims 7 and 17:
wherein the assigned delivery route is a fixed route to be traversed by the mobile delivery device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of route used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 18:
wherein the mobile delivery device is an automated delivery vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use in the form of automated delivery vehicles; what’s more, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an automated delivery vehicle since the device acts in its ordinary capacity to carry out delivery functions and since the limitation merely claims the solution or outcome of the collection of data without giving details as to how such automated delivery is accomplished.
Claims 9 and 19:
wherein the motion vector comprises a speed and direction of travel of the mobile delivery device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of motion vector used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 10 and 20:
wherein the mobile delivery device identifies the assigned route based on an identity of a delivery resource accessing the mobile delivery device.
Regarding the identification step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine identify an assigned route based on an identity of a delivery resource accessing a device; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment companies would perform this step in monitoring shipments to ensure that the proper delivery route is followed in performing delivery services for customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20170316701; hereinafter "Gil") in view of Freeman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20170140478; hereinafter "Freeman") further in view of Jensen et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20200107150; hereinafter "Jensen") and further in view of Bilange et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20130326137; hereinafter "Bilange").
As per claim 1, Gil teaches:
An item delivery system comprising:
Gil teaches a system and method for item delivery. (Gil: abstract)
a mobile delivery device comprising a vector calculation module configured to determine a motion vector associated with the mobile delivery device;
Gil teaches a mobile delivery device in the form of a user computing entity 804 which may be carried by a delivery person as they traverse a delivery route. (Gil: paragraph [0278]) Gil further teaches that the user computing entity may comprise a GPS module and location module which may calculate speed, direction, heading, and course (a motion vector). Id. Gil further teaches that these components may be included in a delivery vehicle computing entity 10. (Gil: paragraph [0297])
a GPS module configured to determine a geo-location of the mobile delivery device as the mobile delivery device traverses a delivery route;
Gil teaches a mobile delivery device in the form of a user computing entity 804 which may be carried by a delivery person as they traverse a delivery route. (Gil: paragraph [0278]) Gil further teaches that the user computing entity may comprise a GPS module and location module which may calculate speed, direction, heading, and course (a motion vector). Id. Gil further teaches that these components may be included in a delivery vehicle computing entity 10. (Gil: paragraph [0297])
a geo-fence database configured to store a plurality of geo-fences for delivery points on a plurality of delivery routes;
Gil teaches that geofences for delivery points along a delivery route may be stored in a geographic information database. (Gil: paragraph [0356-358])
one or more processors configured to:
Gil teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Gil: paragraphs [0159, 303, 305], Fig. 13)
With respect to the following limitation:
retrieve, from the GPS module, breadcrumb data for the mobile delivery device;
Gil teaches that the mobile device's location may be tracked as it traverses a delivery route, but does not appear to explicitly teach that such a route comprises breadcrumb data. (Gil: paragraph [0278])
Freeman, however, teaches that the delivery route which the mobile device is traversing may comprise breadcrumb data. (Freeman: paragraph [0054-56] outlining that delivery personnel may navigate to a delivery location by following previous route breadcrumb data.) Freeman teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Gil for the benefit of helping a delivery person navigate to a delivery location where there is no easy way to describe how to get to the location, and for forming optimum and alternative paths to delivery locations. (Freeman: paragraph [0006, 56]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Freeman with the teachings of Gil to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Gil in view of Freeman does not appear to explicitly teach:
identify, from the plurality of geo-fences, a first set of geo-fences which mobile delivery device has exited and an order in which the first set of geo-fences were exited;
Jensen, however, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In teaching that Jensen keeps track of which stops are visited and whether a stop is missed, Jensen teaches keeping track of the order in which each stop is visited. Jensen teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Gil in view of Freeman for the benefit of solving the data sovereignty challenge in logistic IoT (Internet of Things), and in geospatial data sharing in general, by a strict method associating telematics or other geospatial data with a specific tour, where tour is a combination of location, time, and vehicle. (Jensen: paragraph [0046]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jensen with the teachings of Gil in view of Freeman to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
With respect to the following limitation:
identify, from the plurality of geo-fences based on the motion vector and the geo-location, a second set of geo-fences which the mobile delivery device is approaching;
Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) Jensen further teaches that a determination may be made as to the fact that the vehicle is approaching a given geo-fence based on a received location of the vehicle. (Jensen: paragraph [0097]) The motivation to combine Jensen persists. Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen, as outlined above, does not appear to explicitly teach that the motion vector is used to make this determination.
Bilange, however, teaches that an upcoming set of potential geofences to which a vehicle may be traveling may be identified based on the velocity (a motion vector) of the vehicle. (Bilange: paragraphs [0039-41], Fig. 3) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen, or by Bilange. Using the velocity of the vehicle to determine which geofence it may be approaching does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Bilange with the teachings of Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange further teaches:
determine, based on the identified first and second sets of geo-fences, a traversed sequence of delivery points;
Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then approaches a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
determine whether the traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to an assigned delivery route;
Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In determining whether the vehicle has missed a stop, Jensen teaches that a determination may be made as to whether the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned delivery route. The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
and generate a notification based on the determination that the traversed delivery points do not correspond to the assigned delivery route.
Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In determining whether the vehicle has missed a stop, Jensen teaches that a determination may be made as to whether the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned delivery route. The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
As per claim 3, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a route database storing a plurality delivery points and a delivery point sequence for each of a plurality of delivery routes.
Gil further teaches a geographic information database which may store a plurality of routes with delivery point sequences. (Gil: paragraph [0308-314, 344])
As per claim 4, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive from the mobile delivery device the assigned delivery route for the mobile delivery device.
Gil teaches that the server may receive the assigned and traversed route from the vehicle. (Gil: paragraph [0443-444])
As per claim 5, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to compare the traversed sequence of delivery points with at least a portion of the sequence of delivery points corresponding to the assigned delivery route.
Gil teaches that the server may receive the assigned and traversed route from the vehicle. (Gil: paragraph [0443-444]) Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In determining whether the vehicle has missed a stop, Jensen teaches that a determination may be made as to whether the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned delivery route. The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
As per claim 6, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to the assigned delivery route based on the comparison of the traversed sequence of delivery points and the sequence of delivery points corresponding to the assigned delivery route.
Gil teaches that the server may receive the assigned and traversed route from the vehicle. (Gil: paragraph [0443-444]) Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In determining whether the vehicle has missed a stop, Jensen teaches that a determination may be made as to whether the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned delivery route. The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
As per claim 7, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the assigned delivery route is a fixed route to be traversed by the mobile delivery device.
Gil teaches that the server may receive the assigned and traversed route from the vehicle. (Gil: paragraph [0443-444]) Jensen, as outlined above, teaches that a delivery vehicle's progress along a delivery route may be tracked as the vehicle enters and exits geofences, wherein if the vehicle exits a geofence, skips a geofence for an intermediate stop, and then enters a geofence for a stop coming after the intermediate stop, the system may register the driver as having missed a stop and generate a notification of such. (Jensen: paragraphs [0064, 96-97, 106-115] Fig. 4) In determining whether the vehicle has missed a stop, Jensen teaches that a determination may be made as to whether the traversed sequence of delivery points corresponds to the assigned delivery route. The motivation to combine Jensen persists.
As per claim 8, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the mobile delivery device is an automated delivery vehicle.
Gil teaches that the vehicle which traversed the route may comprise a UAV. (Gil: paragraph [0443])
As per claim 9, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the motion vector comprises a speed and direction of travel of the mobile delivery device.
Gil teaches a mobile delivery device in the form of a user computing entity 804 which may be carried by a delivery person as they traverse a delivery route. (Gil: paragraph [0278]) Gil further teaches that the user computing entity may comprise a GPS module and location module which may calculate speed, direction, heading, and course (a motion vector). Id. Gil further teaches that these components may be included in a delivery vehicle computing entity 10. (Gil: paragraph [0297]) Bilange, as outlined above, teaches that an upcoming set of potential geofences to which a vehicle may be traveling may be identified based on the velocity (a motion vector) of the vehicle. (Bilange: paragraphs [0039-41], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Bilange persists.
As per claim 11, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method of item delivery, the method comprising
Gil teaches a system and method for item delivery. (Gil: abstract)
As per claims 13-19, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 3-9, and claims 13-19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-9, as outlined above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange and further in view of Laranang et al. (U.S. Patent NO. US 9977935 B1; hereinafter "Laranang").
As per claim 10, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:’
wherein the mobile delivery device identifies the assigned route based on an identity of a delivery resource accessing the mobile delivery device.
Laranang, however, teaches that a driver identifier entered into a mobile device may cause the identification and population of the route for that driver. (Laranang: col. 7 lines 33-43) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange, or by Laranang. Pulling the route based on a driver ID does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Laranang with the teachings of Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 20, Gil in view of Freeman further in view of Jensen and further in view of Bilange and further in view of Laranang teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 10, and claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10, as outlined above.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the prior art does not appear to teach, in the context of the systems and methods recited for comparing geofence sequences to determine whether a route is an assigned route, and in ordered combination with the other elements of the claims, that a route may be determined to correspond to an assigned route when three out of five delivery points in a traversed sequence of delivery points correspond to an assigned route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628