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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 19 November 2025. Claims 1-11 and 13-25 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 12 is cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 19 November 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous claim interpretations; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections; and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 19 November 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 17-24, that the references fail to teach “a plurality of individually generated and transmitted Smart Contracts, each specifically associated with a respective mobility order or mobility offer and distributed to multiple terminals within the network” and that the references teach a “single monolithic” smart contract. Examiner respectfully disagrees. "dPACE, a decentralized Privacy-preserving, yet Accountable Car sharing Environment” (“De Troch”) discloses transport offers of vehicles in a network that utilizes smart contracts within a distributed ledger technology to more than one terminal (i.e., node, which is a renter or car) within the network (see De Troch, pg. 11, section 2.1 – Blockchain Technology ; pg. 10, section 2.1.3, pgs. 37-40; FIG. 3.1; FIG. 3.3). De Troch discloses smart contracts that are deployed for multiple renters and cars (i.e., multiple nodes or “terminals”), in which each smart contract is a discrete transaction, distributed to relevant network nodes (see De Troch, pg. 41, section 3.4.1 – The Deployment Phase). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application DE10 2021 123 194.9, filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 08 September 2021 and PCT/EP2022/074904, filed 07 September 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10, 13-15, 17-20, and 24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the consensus module”, recited three times in the claim, should be “the decentralized consensus module”;
Claim 1: “to more than one of the terminals” should be “to more than one of the plurality of terminals”;
Claim 4: “at least one responding offer assignable to the vehicle” should be “at least one responding offer assignable to [[the]] a vehicle”;
Claim 5: “prepare a mobility offer of the vehicle and” should be “prepare a mobility offer of [[the]] a vehicle and”;
Claim 9: “wherein the terminal forms” should be “wherein [[the]] a terminal forms”;
Claim 10: “for the at least one mobility order back” should be “for the at least one received mobility order back”;
Claim 10: “with the selected responding offer” should be “with the selected at least one best offer from all responding offers”;
Claim 13: “some of the terminals” should be “some of the plurality of terminals”;
Claim 14: “the intra-fleet and/or inter-fleet” should be “[[the]] an intra-fleet and/or inter-fleet”;
Claim 14: “wherein in at least one method step mobility orders” should be “wherein in at least one method step, mobility orders” (comma inserted);
Claim 15: “an individual vehicle of the network a mobility offer” should be “an individual vehicle of the network, a mobility offer” (comma inserted);
Claim 17: “by terminals each of” should be “by terminals, each of” (comma inserted);
Claim 17: “for the respective vehicle” should be “for [[the]] a respective vehicle”;
Claim 18: “prepared by the respective terminals” should be “prepared by [[the]] respective terminals”;
Claim 19: “the vehicle”, recited five times, should be “the individual vehicle”;
Claim 20: “given at least to the vehicle having the terminal” should be “given at least to [[the]] a vehicle having [[the]] a terminal”; and
Claim 24: “transmitted to terminals (18, 20) of more than one vehicle” should be “transmitted to terminals .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 recite the limitation "the associated vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim(s) 15-16 recite the limitation "the decentralized consensus module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. As claims 17-25 depend on claims 15 and 16, they are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by "dPACE, a decentralized Privacy-preserving, yet Accountable Car sharing Environment”, hereinafter “De Troch” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, De Troch discloses A decentralized control system for an intra-fleet and/or inter-fleet, at least partially self-organized, control of a network formed at least by vehicles (De Troch, pg. 2-3: “The contribution of this thesis is the design of a car sharing platform that enables multiple renters to interact with multiple cars in a decentralized way. This scalable platform is called dPACE, which stands for a decentralized Privacy-preserving, yet Accountable Car sharing Environment. dPACE a platform deployed on a blockchain and the protocol to book and pay cars is fully compatible with privacy-preserving technologies…The next chapter describes the different requirements and gives a systematic overview for dPACE, our P2P-car sharing protocol.”; pg. 37: “dPACE includes four entities, who all require an Ethereum address to use the system.”)…
comprising a decentralized consensus module, the consensus module being distributed in a decentralized form over a plurality of terminals, which are implemented as integrated vehicle-computer units and/or as mobile computers assigned to the vehicles of the network, and which are executing an operating program, that is pre-installed and/or retrofitted to the plurality of terminals assigned to the vehicles of the network in a distributed manner, and the consensus module being designed for transmitting mobility orders, which are network-external or network-internal transport orders or service provision orders, and/or mobility offers, which are transport offers or service provision offers of vehicles of the network (De Troch, pg. 2: “dPACE is a platform deployed on a blockchain and the protocol to book and pay cars is fully compatible with privacy-preserving technologies.”; pg. 10, section 2.1.3: “Most blockchain implementations consist of a consensus algorithm and a P2P network [i.e., comprising a decentralized consensus module, the consensus module being distributed in a decentralized form over a plurality of terminals].”; pg. 37: “Renter: This is the end-user of the platform, who occasionally requests access to a listed car [i.e., designed for transmitting mobility orders, which are network-external or network-internal transport orders or service provision orders, and/or mobility offers, which are transport offers or service provision offers of vehicles of the network].”; pg. 37: “Another interesting avenue to explore is selling and installing On-Board Units (OBUs) in the cars that are compatible with the platform [i.e., a plurality of terminals, which are implemented as integrated vehicle-computer units and/or as mobile computers assigned to the vehicles of the network].”; pg. 38: “Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes [i.e., executing an operating program, that is pre-installed and/or retrofitted to the plurality of terminals assigned to the vehicles of the network in a distributed manner].”),
in each case in the form of smart contracts within a distributed ledger technology (DLT), (De Troch, pg. 37, section 3.1: “This entity designs the platform and deploys it on the Ethereum blockchain. Once the smart contract is deployed on the blockchain [i.e., in the form of smart contracts within a distributed ledger technology (DLT)], the platform is live and immutable.”),
to more than one of the terminals, with the consensus module comprising a digital ledger of the DLT that is distributed over the plurality of terminals assigned to the vehicles of the network (De Troch, pg. 37: “Another interesting avenue to explore is selling and installing On-Board Units (OBUs) in the cars [i.e., more than one of the terminals] that are compatible with the platform [i.e., the plurality of terminals assigned to the vehicles of the network].”; pg. 38: “Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes [i.e., consensus module comprising a digital ledger of the DLT that is distributed].”).
Regarding claim 2, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each vehicle of the network is represented by a digital twin (De Troch, pg. 37, first sentence: “This chapter describes the ideal functionality of dPACE, a decentralized Privacy-preserving, yet Accountable Car sharing Environment [i.e., decentralized control system].”; pg. 38, second bullet point on the page: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain. Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists.”).
Regarding claim 3, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system claimed in claim 2,
wherein each digital twin is an autonomous decision-making agent in a multi-agent system (De Troch, pg. 38, section 3.1: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain [i.e., each digital twin]. Interaction between the car and dPACE [i.e., in a multi-agent system] happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes [i.e., an autonomous decision-making agent].”),
wherein the multi-agent system is formed at least by the totality of the digital twins each representing vehicles of the network and of their communication with each other (De Troch, pg. 38, section 3.1: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain [i.e., totality of the digital twins each representing vehicles of the network]. Interaction between the car and dPACE [i.e., the multi-agent system] happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists [i.e., of their communication with each other].).
Regarding claim 4, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each terminal is assigned a separate decision module, which is designed to prepare at least one responding offer assignable to the vehicle in response to at least one received mobility order and to transmit said at least one responding offer to the decentralized consensus module (De Troch, Appendix A, pg. 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: “Smart contracts are distributed code that is executed in every node [i.e., each terminal] that is part of the platform [9]. The nodes reach agreement on a final state [i.e., is assigned a separate decision module, which is designed to prepare at least one responding offer assignable to the vehicle in response to at least one received mobility order] through a consensus algorithm [i.e., and to transmit said at least one responding offer to the decentralized consensus module], after which this state is incorporated in the blockchain and becomes immutable after a given time.”).
Regarding claim 5, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each terminal is assigned a separate decision module, which is designed to prepare a mobility offer of the vehicle and to transmit the prepared mobility offer in an automated manner to the decentralized consensus module for deployment as a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT) (De Troch, Appendix A, pg. 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: “Smart contracts [i.e., for deployment as a smart contract] are distributed code that is executed in every node [i.e., each terminal] that is part of the platform [9]. The nodes reach agreement on a final state through a consensus algorithm [i.e., each terminal is assigned a separate decision module, which is designed to prepare a mobility offer of the vehicle and to transmit the prepared mobility offer in an automated manner to the decentralized consensus module], after which this state is incorporated in the blockchain [i.e., within the distributed ledger technology (DLT)] and becomes immutable after a given time.”).
Regarding claim 9, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 4,
wherein the terminal forms at least part of an integrated vehicle-computer unit of the vehicle or at least part of a mobile computer that can be assigned to the vehicle (De Troch, pg. 37, section 3.1: “One approach includes a fixed percentage of fees for each booking or car deployment. Another interesting avenue to explore is selling and installing On-Board Units (OBUs) in the cars [i.e., terminal forms at least part of an integrated vehicle-computer unit of the vehicle] that are compatible with the platform.”; pg. 38, section 3.1: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain. Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU [i.e., can be assigned to the vehicle].”).
Regarding claim 11, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising a serverless infrastructure (De Troch, pg. 2, Introduction: “An additional fundamental property of public blockchains is that they can achieve full decentralization. Full decentralization means that there is no need for a central intermediary anymore [i.e., serverless infrastructure], but instead the power is distributed over the peers in the network.”).
Regarding claim 13, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein at least some of the terminals form distributed ledger technology (DLT) nodes (De Troch, pg. 38, section 3.1: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain. Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU [i.e., at least some of the terminals form]. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes.”; pg. 74, section 6.2: “Public blockchains execute and store the same code in the nodes that constitute its network [i.e., distributed ledger technology (DLT) nodes].”).
Regarding claim 14, De Troch discloses A decentralized control method for the intra-fleet and/or inter-fleet, at least partially self-organized, control of a network formed at least by vehicles (De Troch, pg. 2-3: “The contribution of this thesis is the design of a car sharing platform that enables multiple renters to interact with multiple cars in a decentralized way. This scalable platform is called dPACE, which stands for a decentralized Privacy-preserving, yet Accountable Car sharing Environment. dPACE a platform deployed on a blockchain and the protocol to book and pay cars is fully compatible with privacy-preserving technologies…The next chapter describes the different requirements and gives a systematic overview for dPACE, our P2P-car sharing protocol.”; pg. 37: “dPACE includes four entities, who all require an Ethereum address to use the system.”),
wherein in at least one method step mobility orders, which are network-external or network-internal transport orders or service provision orders, and/or mobility offers, which are internal transport offers or service provision offers, of vehicles of the network are transmitted to more than one terminal in the form of smart contracts within a distributed ledger technology (DLT), the terminals being assigned in each case to vehicles of the network (De Troch, pg. 2: “dPACE is a platform deployed on a blockchain and the protocol to book and pay cars is fully compatible with privacy-preserving technologies.”; pg. 10, section 2.1.3: “Most blockchain implementations consist of a consensus algorithm and a P2P network.”; pg. 37: “Renter: This is the end-user of the platform, who occasionally requests access to a listed car [i.e., at least one method step mobility orders, which are network-external or network-internal transport orders or service provision orders, and/or mobility offers, which are internal transport offers or service provision offers, of vehicles of the network].”; pg. 37, section 3.1: “This entity designs the platform and deploys it on the Ethereum blockchain. Once the smart contract is deployed on the blockchain [i.e., are transmitted to more than one terminal in the form of smart contracts within a distributed ledger technology (DLT)], the platform is live and immutable.”; pg. 37: “Another interesting avenue to explore is selling and installing On-Board Units (OBUs) in the cars that are compatible with the platform [i.e., the terminals being assigned in each case to vehicles of the network].”; pg. 38: “Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes.”).
Regarding claim 15, De Troch discloses The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 14,
wherein in at least one method step, by at least one terminal which is assigned to an individual vehicle of the network a mobility offer is prepared and is transmitted to the decentralized consensus module for deployment as a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT) (De Troch, Appendix A, pg. 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: “Smart contracts [i.e., for deployment as a smart contract] are distributed code that is executed in every node [i.e., , by at least one terminal which is assigned to an individual vehicle of the network] that is part of the platform [9]. The nodes reach agreement on a final state through a consensus algorithm [i.e., a mobility offer is prepared and is transmitted to the decentralized consensus module], after which this state is incorporated in the blockchain [i.e., within the distributed ledger technology (DLT)] and becomes immutable after a given time.”).
Regarding claim 16, De Troch discloses The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 14,
wherein in at least one method step, a mobility order is prepared by a further terminal and is transmitted by the further terminal to the decentralized consensus module for deployment as a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT) (De Troch, Fig. 3.1; Fig. 3.2; pg. 41, section 3.4.1: “The PM deploys the smart contract that handles multiple cars and multiple renters (step 0) [i.e., prepared by a further terminal and is transmitted by the further terminal]. Multiple instances can be deployed so that one smart contract [i.e., a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT)] contains the car sharing for a specific geographic location. The PM could be responsible to investigate whether the car has a correct OBU. For the deployment of the platform it specifies the address of the registration service.”).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 17-18, 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Troch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20200311675-A1, hereinafter “Sankaran” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 6, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system claimed in claim 4, wherein the separate decision module is designed to prepare the at least one responding offer to the at least one received mobility order or a mobility offer… (De Troch, pg. 41, section 3.4.1: “By deploying the car, the owner implicitly agrees that renters can borrow his car. The transaction creates a digital entity for the car and in order to validate itself the car sets its initial location and an access token signed by itself.”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
…taking into account a free-area detection of a loading space sensor of the associated vehicle...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches:
…taking into account a free-area detection of a loading space sensor of the associated vehicle (Sankaran, para. 0038: “An additional aspect of the disclosed technology can enable rerouting of the package during shipment based on shipping price bids, e.g. the disclosed technology may provide rerouting options with constraints, such as maximum price, maximum delivery time, or minimum shipping entity reputation. Another aspect of the disclosed technology can enable the availability of slots or spaces for a specific shipping entity, e.g. an available slot on a specific truck or container, and selection of a specific slot or space for shipping a package [i.e., taking into account a free-area detection of a loading space sensor of the associated vehicle].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of basing the order/request fulfillment decision on the physical availability of the potential equipment that would be used to fulfill the order/request, taught by Sankaran, in order to make sure that the equipment and other conditions of the service provider can fulfill the order/request before accepting the order/request (Sankaran, para. 0010: “Certain examples also involve receiving the request to the blockchain address for the routing data block for next shipping information and, responsive to receiving the request to the blockchain address for the routing data block for next shipping information, determining one or more route options for the next shipping stage based on current conditions and providing the one or more options for the next shipping stage based on current conditions for display.”; para. 0011: “In these examples, current conditions can include one or more of current bid pricing, current availability, current time, current geolocation, current availability and equipment for one or more shippers, pickup time, delivery time, current weather conditions, current traffic conditions, an instruction from the recipient, current calendar data for the recipient, and time remaining until promised delivery.”).
Regarding claim 8, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the separate decision module is designed to prepare at least the at least one responding offer to the at least one received mobility order or a mobility offer, taking into account geolocation data and/or taking into account a current route planning… (De Troch, pg. 41, section 3.4.1: “By deploying the car, the owner implicitly agrees that renters can borrow his car. The transaction creates a digital entity for the car and in order to validate itself the car sets its initial location [i.e., taking into account geolocation data] and an access token signed by itself.”).
De Troch does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
…taking into account…a current itinerary schedule and/or a current itinerary sequence of a navigation system of the associated vehicle...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches:
…taking into account…a current itinerary schedule and/or a current itinerary sequence of a navigation system of the associated vehicle…(Sankaran, para. 0108: “For example, one or more shippers can provide data regarding their routes, availability, times, and cost. Other information, such as shipper reputation, may be provided by another service or maintained in a database, e.g. routing service 124 can accumulate and maintain reputation data for shippers.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of matching a mobility request with a mobility provider that has equipment and timing availability that can fulfill the request, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the request and the availability of the provider (Sankaran, para. 0044: “One technical advantage of certain aspects of disclosed technology is that the routing information can be maintained securely and selectively released to authorized shipping entities. Since certain aspects of the disclosed technology provide for a recipient to be notified and allow the recipient to provide an alternative geolocation address for delivery, service and security can be improved because the recipient can be notified of a pending arrival of an item and can redirect delivery.”).
Regarding claim 10, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 4, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the decentralized consensus module is designed to select at least one best offer from all received responding offers and to transmit a contract confirmation for the at least one mobility order back to the vehicle with the selected responding offer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches:
wherein the decentralized consensus module is designed to select at least one best offer from all received responding offers and to transmit a contract confirmation for the at least one mobility order back to the vehicle with the selected responding offer (Sankaran, para. 0009: “In some of these examples, the operation of determining the one or more shipping route options [i.e., decentralized consensus module is designed to select at least one best offer from all received responding offers] for the item based on the geolocation for the sender and the geolocation for the recipient involves obtaining supporting data relating to one or more shipping entities and determining the one or more shipping route options for the item based on the geolocation for the sender, the geolocation for the recipient, and the supporting data relating to one or more shipping entities.”; para. 0064: “Depending on the implementation, in these examples, when the sender selects a shipping route for the package, routing service 124 or a service residing in sender device 110 creates a contract, e.g. a routing data block 142 on blockchain 140, using decentralized blockchain network 160 that defines a shipping route for shipping a package to the geolocation address of the recipient associated with recipient device 130, e.g. multiple intermediate shippers for shipping from the sender to the recipient [i.e., transmit a contract confirmation for the at least one mobility order back to the vehicle with the selected responding offer].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of selecting the best mobility provider(s) from a several options and sending a contract to that/those mobility provider(s), taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0044: “One technical advantage of certain aspects of disclosed technology is that the routing information can be maintained securely and selectively released to authorized shipping entities. Since certain aspects of the disclosed technology provide for a recipient to be notified and allow the recipient to provide an alternative geolocation address for delivery, service and security can be improved because the recipient can be notified of a pending arrival of an item and can redirect delivery.”).
Regarding claim 17, De Troch discloses The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 16, wherein in at least one method step, by terminals each of which is assigned to individual vehicles of the network, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
…it is decided - based on an individual evaluation of an offer preparation target function for the respective vehicle of the network that one of the terminals is assigned to - whether, and with which parameters, a responding offer to the mobility order will be submitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches:
…it is decided - based on an individual evaluation of an offer preparation target function for the respective vehicle of the network that one of the terminals is assigned to - whether, and with which parameters, a responding offer to the mobility order will be submitted (Sankaran, para. 0036: “Each shipping request 112 can specify request parameters 113 [i.e., with which parameters, a responding offer to the mobility order will be submitted], such as load information (e.g., type of load, load identification), loading location, and delivery location. In variations, the shipping requests 112 can specify timing parameters (e.g., time interval specifying when loading can take place, a delivery time interval when the loaded load can be unloaded at the delivery location), freight vehicle type specifications, and/or other considerations.”; para. 0038: “The matching service [i.e., evaluation of an offer preparation target function for the respective vehicle of the network that one of the terminals is assigned to] can prioritize categorical designations for matching [i.e., with which parameters], such that freight operators that satisfy a particular categorical designation are weighted or favored to match to a corresponding shipping request 112. In this manner, the categorical designations can be used to promote objectives of (i) reducing the distance and/or duration of travel for freight vehicles in between carrying loads, and/or (ii) increasing the instances when freight operators are matched to a shipping request that matches a preference or promotes an objective of the freight operator. Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators [i.e., responding offer to the mobility order will be submitted], as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of considering certain parameters in a mobility request/order in the determination process for the best matched mobility service provider(s), taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 18, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 17, and De Troch further discloses the following:
wherein in at least one further method step a responding offer to the mobility order is prepared by the respective terminals that are assigned to the individual vehicles of the network (De Troch, Fig. 3.1; pg. 38, section 3.1: “Car: Once the owner submits the car to the platform, a digital twin is created on-chain. Interaction between the car and dPACE happens through the OBU [i.e., respective terminals]. This is an embedded system that can connect to the Internet, which is where the communication exists [i.e., a responding offer to the mobility order is prepared by the respective terminals that are assigned to the individual vehicles of the network]. Furthermore, it performs cryptographic operations, like hashing, signing, encrypting and decrypting values according to pre-defined cryptographic schemes.”).
Regarding claim 20, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 17, wherein in at least one further method step, all responding offers submitted by terminals assigned to different vehicles… and Sankaran further teaches the following:
…are evaluated by means of a contract target function of the smart contract, wherein at least one best offer is determined according to criteria of the contract target function and wherein an award of contract is given at least to the vehicle having the terminal from which the at least one best offer originates (Sankaran, para. 0036: “Each shipping request 112 can specify request parameters 113, such as load information (e.g., type of load, load identification), loading location, and delivery location. In variations, the shipping requests 112 can specify timing parameters (e.g., time interval specifying when loading can take place, a delivery time interval when the loaded load can be unloaded at the delivery location), freight vehicle type specifications, and/or other considerations.”; para. 0038: “The matching service [i.e., evaluated by means of a contract target function of the smart contract] can prioritize categorical designations for matching [i.e., according to criteria of the contract target function], such that freight operators that satisfy a particular categorical designation are weighted or favored to match to a corresponding shipping request 112. In this manner, the categorical designations can be used to promote objectives of (i) reducing the distance and/or duration of travel for freight vehicles in between carrying loads, and/or (ii) increasing the instances when freight operators are matched to a shipping request that matches a preference or promotes an objective of the freight operator. Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment [i.e., an award of contract is given at least to the vehicle having the terminal from which the at least one best offer originates] when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of considering certain parameters in a mobility request/order in the determination process for the best matched mobility service provider(s), taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 21, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 20, and Sankaran further teaches the following:
wherein a combination of submitted responding offers is determined as the at least one best offer and the award of contract is given to more than one vehicle (Sankaran, para. 0009: “In some of these examples, the operation of determining the one or more shipping route options for the item based on the geolocation for the sender and the geolocation for the recipient involves obtaining supporting data relating to one or more shipping entities [i.e., combination of submitted responding offers is determined as the at least one best offer and the award of contract is given to more than one vehicle] and determining the one or more shipping route options for the item based on the geolocation for the sender, the geolocation for the recipient, and the supporting data relating to one or more shipping entities.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of more than one mobility service provider fulfilling a mobility order, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 22, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 20, and Sankaran further teaches the following:
wherein in at least one method step, the mobility order is integrated in an automated manner into an updated route guidance, itinerary sequence and/or itinerary schedule of the vehicle/vehicles which are given the award of contract (Sankaran, para. 0005: “The disclosed technology can also involve receiving a selection of one of the shipping route options as a selected shipping route option, creating a routing data block for the item on a blockchain, the routing data block having a blockchain address and the routing data block including shipping information for each stage of the selected shipping route, and encoding a shipping tag with the blockchain address of the routing data block for the item.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of updating the route guidance, itinerary sequence and/or itinerary schedule of the mobility provider based on receiving and accepting a mobility order, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively complete the mobility order (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 23, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 20, and Sankaran further teaches the following:
wherein in at least one method step, a mobility order, for which a vehicle has already been given the award of contract, is brokered further by the terminal of the vehicle as a secondary mobility order (Sankaran, para. 0040: “The secure, distributed and immutable nature of the blockchain allows an intermediate shipper involved in the shipping process [i.e., for which a vehicle has already been given the award of contract, is brokered further by the terminal of the vehicle as a secondary mobility order] to shipping information, such as a name and geolocation address, for a next shipping stage in a shipping route for an item.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of more than one mobility service provider fulfilling a mobility order, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 24, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 23, and Sankaran further teaches the following:
wherein the secondary mobility order, in the form of a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT) is transmitted to terminals (18, 20) of more than one vehicle of the network (Sankaran, para. 0040: “The secure, distributed and immutable nature of the blockchain allows an intermediate shipper involved in the shipping process to shipping information [i.e., the secondary mobility order, in the form of a smart contract within the distributed ledger technology (DLT)], such as a name and geolocation address, for a next shipping stage in a shipping route for an item.”; para. 0041: “Note that for shipping that uses multiple intermediate shipping entities, certain examples of the disclosed technology can operate such that each intermediate shipping entity is shown only the address of the hand-off or delivery location to the next intermediate shipper [i.e., transmitted to terminals…of more than one vehicle of the network]. For example, a pickup agent scans the shipping tag on a package and receives an identifier or address for a bulk shipper to which the package is delivered. A bulk shipper transfer agent scans the shipping tag on the package and receives an identifier or address for a next intermediate shipper in a destination city and bulk ships the package to the destination city.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of more than one mobility service provider fulfilling a mobility order, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Regarding claim 25, De Troch and Sankaran teach The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 23,
wherein the secondary mobility order is offered in a spot market for secondary mobility orders (Sankaran, para. 0040: “The secure, distributed and immutable nature of the blockchain allows an intermediate shipper [i.e., offered in a spot market for secondary mobility orders] involved in the shipping process to shipping information [i.e., the secondary mobility order], such as a name and geolocation address, for a next shipping stage in a shipping route for an item.”; para. 0042: “In another example, authentication of intermediate shippers can be required in order to obtain shipping information. Authentication can utilize keys stored for shipping entities in the routing data block. Alternatively, keys can be utilized to encrypt data or communications.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of more than one mobility service provider fulfilling a mobility order, taught by Sankaran, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the requestor and the availability and suitability of the provider(s) (Sankaran, para. 0038: “Moreover, as compared to conventional freight matching services, the network computer system 100 reduces the amount of computing and/or effort that would otherwise be required to match shipping requests to freight operators, as matched freight operators are more likely to accept a shipping request for assignment when the selection of the freight operator promotes an objective or preference of the freight operator.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Troch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20190385119-A1, hereinafter “Chang” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 7, De Troch discloses The decentralized control system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the separate decision module is designed to prepare the at least one responding offer to the at least one received mobility order or a mobility offer… (De Troch, pg. 41, section 3.4.1: “By deploying the car, the owner implicitly agrees that renters can borrow his car. The transaction creates a digital entity for the car and in order to validate itself the car sets its initial location and an access token signed by itself.”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
…taking into account a free-weight detection of a load weight sensor of the associated vehicle...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches:
…taking into account a free-weight detection of a load weight sensor of the associated vehicle (Chang, para. 0051: “In turn, the communication system 200 can utilize the ELD information to determine the state of the freight vehicle or freight operator. Similarly, the service application 206 can communicate with sensors that are integrated or otherwise provided with the trailer, tires, or other components of the freight vehicle. Processes of the service application 206 and/or communication system 200 can utilize sensor information to determine, for example, whether the freight vehicle is available to carry an additional load based on an estimated size or weight of an existing load carried within the trailer of the freight vehicle [i.e., taking into account a free-weight detection of a load weight sensor of the associated vehicle].”)...
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of matching a mobility request with a mobility provider that has equipment that can fulfill the request, taught by Chang, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the request and the availability of and type of equipment of the provider (Chang, para. 0038: “The matching service can prioritize categorical designations for matching, such that freight operators that satisfy a particular categorical designation are weighted or favored to match to a corresponding shipping request 112. In this manner, the categorical designations can be used to promote objectives of (i) reducing the distance and/or duration of travel for freight vehicles in between carrying loads, and/or (ii) increasing the instances when freight operators are matched to a shipping request that matches a preference or promotes an objective of the freight operator.”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Troch, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US-20200311675-A1, hereinafter “Sankaran” (previously of record) and US-20190385119-A1, hereinafter “Chang” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 19, De Troch discloses The decentralized control method as claimed in claim 15,
wherein for an evaluation of an offer preparation target function, for preparing a responding offer and/or for preparing the mobility offer…a temporal availability of the vehicle (De Troch, pg. 53, section 4.2.1: “The renter initiates a booking by filtering the blockchain log for available cars [i.e., temporal availability of the vehicle] and their location.”)…
…geolocation data of the vehicle and/or start and/or destination locations of a mobility order are considered (De Troch, pg. 53, section 4.2.1: “The renter initiates a booking by filtering the blockchain log for available cars and their location.”).
De Troch does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
an available free area / free volume / capacity of the vehicle, an available free weight of the vehicle…an already planned route, itinerary and/or itinerary sequence of the vehicle…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sankaran teaches:
an available free area / free volume / capacity of the vehicle (Sankaran, para. 0038: “An additional aspect of the disclosed technology can enable rerouting of the package during shipment based on shipping price bids, e.g. the disclosed technology may provide rerouting options with constraints, such as maximum price, maximum delivery time, or minimum shipping entity reputation. Another aspect of the disclosed technology can enable the availability of slots or spaces for a specific shipping entity, e.g. an available slot on a specific truck or container, and selection of a specific slot or space for shipping a package [i.e., an available free area / free volume / capacity of the vehicle].”)…
…an already planned route, itinerary and/or itinerary sequence of the vehicle (Sankaran, para. 0108: “For example, one or more shippers can provide data regarding their routes, availability, times, and cost. Other information, such as shipper reputation, may be provided by another service or maintained in a database, e.g. routing service 124 can accumulate and maintain reputation data for shippers.”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, with the concept of basing the order/request fulfillment decision on the physical availability of the potential equipment that would be used to fulfill the order/request, taught by Sankaran, in order to make sure that the equipment and other conditions of the service provider can fulfill the order/request before accepting the order/request (Sankaran, para. 0010: “Certain examples also involve receiving the request to the blockchain address for the routing data block for next shipping information and, responsive to receiving the request to the blockchain address for the routing data block for next shipping information, determining one or more route options for the next shipping stage based on current conditions and providing the one or more options for the next shipping stage based on current conditions for display.”; para. 0011: “In these examples, current conditions can include one or more of current bid pricing, current availability, current time, current geolocation, current availability and equipment for one or more shippers, pickup time, delivery time, current weather conditions, current traffic conditions, an instruction from the recipient, current calendar data for the recipient, and time remaining until promised delivery.”).
De Troch and Sankaran do not appear to explicitly teach the following:
…an available free weight of the vehicle…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches:
…an available free weight of the vehicle (Chang, para. 0051: “In turn, the communication system 200 can utilize the ELD information to determine the state of the freight vehicle or freight operator. Similarly, the service application 206 can communicate with sensors that are integrated or otherwise provided with the trailer, tires, or other components of the freight vehicle. Processes of the service application 206 and/or communication system 200 can utilize sensor information to determine, for example, whether the freight vehicle is available to carry an additional load based on an estimated size or weight of an existing load carried within the trailer of the freight vehicle [i.e., an available free weight of the vehicle].”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by De Troch, as modified by Sankaran, with the concept of matching a mobility request with a mobility provider that has equipment that can fulfill the request, including weight limitations, taught by Chang, in order to efficiently and effectively match requestors and providers in a mobility network based on the needs of the request and the availability of and type of equipment of the provider (Chang, para. 0038: “The matching service can prioritize categorical designations for matching, such that freight operators that satisfy a particular categorical designation are weighted or favored to match to a corresponding shipping request 112. In this manner, the categorical designations can be used to promote objectives of (i) reducing the distance and/or duration of travel for freight vehicles in between carrying loads, and/or (ii) increasing the instances when freight operators are matched to a shipping request that matches a preference or promotes an objective of the freight operator.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663