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 is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/30/2024 and 05/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 5, omit "and".
Claim 20 line 2, "location-base" should read "location-based".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for managing location-based tasks for a location-aware vehicle, comprising:
receiving a first request from a first device having a first user interface to create a first location-based task;
creating a first location-based task based on the input received from the first device;
storing the first location-based task in a task-service memory;
associating the first location-based task with a first location; and
associating the location-based task with the location-aware vehicle.
Claim 15. A method of creating a location-based task for a location-aware vehicle, comprising:
receiving a request from a device having a user interface to create a location-based task;
identifying the task location of the location-based task for the location-aware vehicle;
determining task content of the location-based task, including the task location and one or more of a task name, task category, task materials, task work group, vehicle operator, and vehicle identification; and
assigning the location-based task to the location-aware vehicle.
Claim 19. A method of managing a plurality of location-based tasks for a plurality of location-aware vehicles, comprising:
defining the plurality of location-based tasks, including a first task having first task content and a second task having second task content;
associating each of the plurality of location-based tasks with a task location, including associating the first location-based task with a first task location, and associating a second location-based task with a second task location;
identifying the plurality of location-aware vehicles, including identifying a first location-aware vehicle and a second location-aware vehicle, the first location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the first location-aware vehicle and the second location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the second location-aware vehicle;
communicating a first location-based task to the first location-aware vehicle; and
communicating a second location-based task to the second location-aware vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Claims 1, 15, and 19 recite a method (i.e. process). This claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
Claim 1 recites the limitations of creating a first location-based task based on the input received from the first device; associating the first location-based task with a first location; and associating the location-based task with the location-aware vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, are simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being perform by using a pen and paper. For example, the claim could implicate a person creating a task based off given data, furthermore, a person could associate task with a location and vehicle based purely on judgement. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Additionally, the claim 15 recites the limitations identifying the task location of the location-based task for the location-aware vehicle; determining task content of the location-based task, including the task location and one or more of a task name, task category, task materials, task work group, vehicle operator, and vehicle identification; and assigning the location-based task to the location-aware vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person forming a simple observation of the task location, and forming a judgement of task content and assigning the task to a vehicle. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Furthermore, claim 19 recites the limitations of defining the plurality of location-based tasks, including a first task having first task content and a second task having second task content; associating each of the plurality of location-based tasks with a task location, including associating the first location-based task with a first task location, and associating a second location-based task with a second task location; and identifying the plurality of location-aware vehicles, including identifying a first location-aware vehicle and a second location-aware vehicle, the first location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the first location-aware vehicle and the second location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the second location-aware vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, are simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being perform by using a pen and paper. For example, the claim could implicate a person forming a simple opinion of a plurality of task and the respective location, and forming an observation of a plurality of vehicles. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical
application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites additional elements or steps of receiving a first request from a first device having a first user interface to create a first location-based task and storing the first location-based task in a task-service memory. The receiving a request from a device and storing tasks are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, claim 15 recites additional element or step of receiving a request from a device having a user interface to create a location-based task. The receiving a request from a device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, claim 19 recites additional elements or steps of communicating a first location-based task to the first location-aware vehicle; and communicating a second location-based task to the second location-aware vehicle. The communication between the respective vehicle is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving or transmitting data over a network).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving a first request from a first device having a first user interface to create a first location-based task; receiving a request from a device having a user interface to create a location-based task; communicating a first location-based task to the first location-aware vehicle; and communicating a second location-based task to the second location-aware vehicle are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Additionally, the additional limitation of storing the first location-based task in a task-service memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as stated in the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the claims 1, 15, and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alzahrani (US20150356856A1), hereinafter Alzahrani.
Regarding claim 1, Alzahrani discloses a method for managing location-based tasks for a location-aware vehicle ("A vehicle task reminder device include…a GPS used indicate location", [0005]), comprising: receiving a first request from a first device having a first user interface to create a first location-based task ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", [0026]); creating a first location-based task based on the input received from the first device ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016]); storing the first location-based task in a task-service memory ("The to do list can be saved in the memory", [0016]); associating the first location-based task with a first location ("…a current time and location corresponding to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005]); and associating the location-based task with the location-aware vehicle ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Alzahrani discloses wherein receiving a request from a first device having a user interface to create a first location-based task includes receiving a request from a user interface device integrated into the location-aware vehicle ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", Col. 5 line 7; "…a current time and location corresponding to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Alzahrani discloses wherein creating a first location-based task based on the input received from the first device ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", [0026]) includes associating task content with the first location-based task (Fig. 5, REMINDER and TASK column).
Regarding claim 4, Alzahrani discloses wherein the task content includes one or more of a task location, task name, task category, task date, task assignment, materials associated with the first task, user notes and photos (See at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Alzahrani discloses wherein associating the first location-based task with a first location includes identifying a current location of the location-aware vehicle and associating the current location of the location-aware vehicle with the first location ("A vehicle task reminder device includes…a GPS used to indicate location and direction…the processor…causes the emitter to activate the alarm signal when a current time and location correspond to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Alzahrani discloses wherein associating the first location-based task with a first location includes receiving an input at the first user interface selecting a predetermined location saved in a memory device in communication with the first device ("A vehicle task reminder device includes a clock, a GPS used to indicate location and direction, and memory used to store predetermined information", [0005], implicit that the location falls under "predetermined information", "…the system checks the location of the vehicle and compares it to a predetermined home address saved in memory 602", [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Alzahrani discloses wherein the predetermined location includes a saved track, route, or geographical area ("...the system checks the location of the vehicle and compares it to a predetermined home address saved in memory 602", [0022], shows that an address (geographical area) as the predetermined location).
Regarding claim 9, Alzahrani discloses further comprising: receiving a second request from a second device having a second user interface to create a second location-based task ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", [0026]); creating a location-based second task based on the input received from the second device ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016]); and storing the second location-based task in the task-service memory ("The to do list can be saved in the memory", [0016]); and creating a set of location-based tasks that includes the first location-based task and the second location-based task ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016], see at least Fig. 5, shows multiple tasks each with their own location).
Regarding claim 11, Alzahrani discloses further comprising displaying the set of location-based tasks as a task list ("FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary to do list displaying different scenarios according to one example", [0012]) on a display screen of the first user interface of the first device or on a display screen of the second user interface of the second device ("The vehicle task reminder device further includes a display controller…with display 610…as well as a touch screen panel 616 on or separate from display 610", [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Alzahrani discloses a method of creating a location-based task for a location-aware vehicle ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", [0026], "A vehicle task reminder device include…a GPS used indicate location", [0005]), comprising: receiving a request from a device having a user interface to create a location-based task ("The to do list may be set via manual input from the vehicle 402, or remotely via an external connection such as a server 404, a personal computer 406…or via a personal smart phone 410", [0026]); identifying the task location of the location-based task for the location-aware vehicle ("…a current time and location corresponding to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005], "A vehicle task reminder device include…a GPS used indicate location", [0005]); determining task content of the location-based task, including the task location and one or more of a task name, task category, task materials, task work group, vehicle operator, and vehicle identification (See at least Fig. 5); and assigning the location-based task to the location-aware vehicle ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016]).
Regarding claim 16, Alzahrani discloses wherein identifying the task location of the location-based task for the location-aware vehicle includes identifying the task location using a geolocation system of the location-aware vehicle ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Alzahrani discloses further comprising communicating the location-based task and task content to the location-aware vehicle ("Once a to do list has been set the process proceeds to step S204 where the system synchronizes the to do list with the vehicle's GPS and time", [0016], the synchronization between the list to the vehicle implies communication).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzahrani in view of Nelissen (US8219115B1), hereinafter Nelissen.
Regarding claim 5, Alzahrani teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein associating the first location-based task with a first location ("…a current time and location corresponding to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005]).
However, Alzahrani does not teach of includes receiving an input at the first user interface indicating a location on a graphical map displayed on the first user interface.
Nelissen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of includes receiving an input at the first user interface indicating a location on a graphical map displayed on the first user interface ("For example, the term "dinner" may be associated with terms such as "restaurant", and a search may be conducted for restaurants in a user's vicinity. Such restaurants may be highlighted on a map that is shown on the user's mobile device 202 as the user drives from work to their home, Col. 5 line 54, implicit that the suggestions from the map can be used as input).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the location-based task of Alzahrani with the teaching of Nelissen to utilize a graphical map of the user interface as an input with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simplify the process of creating a task and improve the user experience of utilizing the system (Nelissen, col. 1 line 65).
Regarding claim 13, Alzahrani teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Alzahrani does not teach of further comprising displaying the first location associated with the first location-based task on a graphical map displayed on the first user interface.
Nelissen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising displaying the first location associated with the first location-based task on a graphical map displayed on the first user interface ("In addition, notifying the user can comprise generating a display of a map around the user's current location and the determined location, and providing a visual or audio indication of the task content", Col. 2 line 41).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Alzahrani with the teachings of Nelissen to display the location of the task on the user interface with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the user experience by providing a visual representation of the tasks (Nelissen, Col. 2 line 41).
Regarding claim 17, Alzahrani teaches of all limitations of claim 15 as stated above, additionally, wherein identifying the task location of the location-based task for the location-aware vehicle ("…a current time and location corresponding to any task of the at least one to do list", [0005], "A vehicle task reminder device include…a GPS used indicate location", [0005]) includes receiving an output signal from the device ("The device also includes an emitter used to active an alarm signal", [0005]), the device including a touch-screen display user-interface ("The vehicle task reminder device further includes a display controller…with display 610…as well as a touch screen panel 616 on or separate from display 610", [0040]), and the output signal including an indication of a location ("based on GPS location tracking, an alarm may be sent", [0017]) based on an input received from a user touching the touch-screen display ("The vehicle task reminder device further includes a display controller…with display 610…as well as a touch screen panel 616 on or separate from display 610", [0040]).
However, Alzahrani does not teach of displaying a graphical map and indication of a location defined on the graphical map.
Nelissen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of displaying a graphical map ("In addition, notifying the user can comprise generating a display of a map around the user's current location and the determined location, and providing a visual or audio indication of the task content", Col. 2 line 41) and indication of a location defined on the graphical map (“In addition, notifying the user can comprise generating a display of a map around the user’s current location and determined location, and providing a visual or audio indication of the task content”, Col. 2 line 41).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Alzahrani to identify the task locations and output them on the user interface with the teachings of Nelissen to utilize the graphical map for the user interface with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the user experience by providing a visual representation of the tasks (Nelissen, Col. 2 line 41).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzahrani in view of Hamzehi et al. (EP3806007A1), hereinafter Hamzehi.
Regarding claim 10, Alzahrani teaches of all limitation of claim 9 as stated above.
However, Alzahrani does not teach of further comprising associating the second location-based task with a second location-aware vehicle.
Hamzehi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising associating the second location-based task with a second location-aware vehicle ("…a method for assigning a plurality of vehicles to a plurality of vehicular tasks", [0003], "the information on the plurality of vehicles may comprise for each vehicle at least one of information on a current position of the vehicle…", [0009]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Alzahrani with the teaching of Hamzehi to include a second task associated with a second vehicle with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the overall performance of the system by enabling the completion of multiple tasks simultaneously (Hamzehi, [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Alzahrani teaches of limitations of claim 9 as stated above.
However, Alzahrani does not teach of further comprising filtering the set of location-based tasks to create a work list includes less than all of the location-based tasks of the set of location-based tasks.
Hamzehi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising filtering the set of location-based tasks to create a work list includes less than all of the location-based tasks of the set of location-based tasks ("This plurality of potential assignments may be reduced, e.g., based on one or more filter criteria", [0039]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Alzahrani with the teaching of Hamzehi to enable filtering on the list of tasks with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the efficiency of the system by grouping and organizing tasks, which help with fleet routing and maintenance (Hamzehi, [0002]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzahrani in view of Ricci (US9142072B2), hereinafter Ricci.
Regarding claim 14, Alzahrani teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically, of the first location-based task ("A vehicle task reminder device include…a GPS used indicate location", [0005]).
However, Alzahrani does not teach of further comprising identifying materials required for the first location-based task and associating the identified materials with the first location-based task.
Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising identifying materials required for the first location-based task and associating the identified materials with the first location-based task (FIG. 40, 4030 "Include a list of items associated with the action with the notification").
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the location-based task of Alzahrani with the list of items of Ricci to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements in order to improve the performance of the system by providing the user with additional details to complete the task.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamzehi in view of Alzahrani.
Regarding claim 19, Hamzehi teaches of a method of managing a plurality of location-based tasks for a plurality of location-aware vehicles ("…a method for assigning a plurality of vehicles to a plurality of vehicular tasks", [0003], "…the information of the plurality of vehicles may comprise for each vehicle at least one of information on a current position of the vehicle…", [0009], information regarding current position of the vehicle implies location-awareness), comprising: identifying the plurality of location-aware vehicles, including identifying a first location-aware vehicle and a second location-aware vehicle ("…a method for assigning a plurality of vehicles to a plurality of vehicular tasks", [0003]), the first location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the first location-aware vehicle and the second location-aware vehicle configured to determine a vehicle location of the second location-aware vehicle ("…the information of the plurality of vehicles may comprise for each vehicle at least one of information on a current position of the vehicle…", [0009], information regarding current position of the vehicle implies location-awareness); communicating a first location-based task to the first location-aware vehicle ("…a method for assigning a plurality of vehicles to a plurality of vehicular tasks", [0003], implicit that the assignment is the communication between the task and the vehicle, "…the information of the plurality of vehicles may comprise for each vehicle at least one of information on a current position of the vehicle…", [0009], information regarding current position of the vehicle implies location-awareness); and communicating a second location-based task to the second location-aware vehicle ("…a method for assigning a plurality of vehicles to a plurality of vehicular tasks", [0003], implicit that the assignment is the communication between the task and the vehicle, "…the information of the plurality of vehicles may comprise for each vehicle at least one of information on a current position of the vehicle…", [0009], information regarding current position of the vehicle implies location-awareness).
However, Hamzehi does not teach of defining the plurality of location-based tasks, including a first task having first task content and a second task having second task content; and associating each of the plurality of location-based tasks with a task location, including associating the first location-based task with a first task location, and associating a second location-based task with a second task location.
Alzahrani, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of defining the plurality of location-based tasks, including a first task having first task content and a second task having second task content (See at least Fig. 5); and associating each of the plurality of location-based tasks with a task location, including associating the first location-based task with a first task location, and associating a second location-based task with a second task location (See at least Fig. 5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of Hamzehi with the teachings of Alzahrani of defining a plurality of tasks having their respective task content and location with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the overall performance of the system by enabling the completion of multiple tasks simultaneously (Hamzehi, [0005]), and to improve the efficiency of the system by organizing each task (along with their respective content and location) to their respective vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hamzehi teaches of all limitations of claim 19 as stated above.
However, modified Hamzehi does not teach of wherein the first task location is different from the second task location and the first location-based task is different from the second location-base task.
Alzahrani, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the first task location is different from the second task location and the first location-based task is different from the second location-base task (See at least Fig. 5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Hamzehi with the teaching of Alzahrani of different task locations and location-based task with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the overall performance of the system by enabling the completion of multiple tasks simultaneously (Hamzehi, [0005]), and to improve the efficiency of the system by organizing each task (along with their respective content and location) to their respective vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights