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 Claim
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 5-10 have been added.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts the recited claim language is directed to a practical application at least because the assigned delivery vehicle travels to the boarding position or the destination during the delivery of the packages. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a human mind is not physically capable of the recited claim language. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Picking up and/or delivering items and/or passengers to pre-assigned locations falls within the abstract category of managing human behavior or interactions between people. Additionally, a human can develop a schedule which falls under mental processes. The claims do not disclose the control of an autonomous vehicle and the specification is silent on the matter. At best, the specification at ¶27 discloses the controller 52 has a CPU53 and a memory 54. The memory 54 stores a control program executed by the CPU53. When the CPU53 executes the control program, the controller 52 executes a process of creating the delivery schedule SC of the delivery vehicle 10, a process of providing the service to the user 40, and the like. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a database configured to manage, for each delivery vehicle, delivery point information including information about positions of delivery points of packages delivered by the delivery vehicles; and a controller including processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute acquiring the destination and a boarding position at which the ride seeker desires to ride, based on the delivery point information, calculating an estimated transport time for each delivery vehicle the estimated transport time being an estimated value of a time the delivery vehicle takes to travel from the boarding position to the destination in a case where the delivery vehicle travels to the boarding position and the destination while the delivery vehicle is delivering a package to the delivery points of the packages, and assigning the ride seeker one of the delivery vehicles that differs from a delivery vehicle having a longest estimated transport time; and the assigned one of the delivery vehicle travels to at least one of the boarding position or the destination after delivering a first package of the packages and before delivering a second package of the packages, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”, “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Dependent claims 2-10 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 1 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1 recites additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶28-32"The delivery vehicle management system 50 includes a communication device 51, a controller 52, and a database 56. The communication device 51 is an interface of the delivery vehicle management system 50 for transmitting and receiving information to and from an external communication device via the communication network 100. For example, the communication device 51 outputs information received via the communication network 100 to the controller 52. Further, for example, the communication device 51 transmits information output by the controller 52 to the information terminal 30 via the communication network 100. The user interface 32 includes a display screen and an operation unit. An example of the processing circuitry 33 is an electronic control device. When the operation unit is operated by the user 40, the processing circuitry 33 executes processing corresponding to the operation. When the communication device 31 receives information from the delivery vehicle management system 50 via the communication network 100, the processing circuitry 33 causes the information received by the communication device 31 to be displayed on the display screen of the user interface 32”.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-4 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20210256466 to Javidan et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Javidan”) in view of WO 2024057714A1 to Watanuki (hereinafter referred to as “Watanuki”).
(A) As per Claim 1:
Javidan expressly discloses:
a database configured to manage, for each delivery vehicle, delivery point information including information about positions of delivery points of packages delivered by the delivery vehicles; (Javidan ¶19, 59 autonomous delivery robots (which also may be referred to as delivery vehicles) may include locking storage containers to hold packages and other items for delivery to recipients at requested times and locations. The vehicle computing device 504 may include one or more processors 516 and memory 518 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 516. In the illustrated example, the vehicle 502 is an autonomous vehicle; however, the vehicle 502 could be any other type of vehicle. In the illustrated example, the memory 518 of the vehicle computing device 504 stores a localization component 520, a perception component 522, one or more maps 524, one or more system controllers 526, a planning component 528, a locker control component 530, and/or a teleoperations component 532).
a controller including processing circuitry; (Javidan ¶77 the drive system(s) 514 may include a drive system controller which may receive and preprocess data from the sensor system(s) and to control operation of the various vehicle systems. In some examples, the drive system controller may include one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled with the one or more processors).
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute acquiring the destination and a boarding position at which the ride seeker desires to ride; (Javidan ¶93, 107, 146 when the delivery vehicle 608 and/or the item delivery system 606 determines that the delivery vehicle 608 should be driven to a different location (1106: Yes), then at 1107 the delivery vehicle 608 may be controlled again to drive to a new location. In various examples, the new location may be the next location in a delivery route, an item pick-up location (e.g., merchant warehouse) to receive a new load of items for delivery, an item drop-off location (e.g., merchant retail location or return certain) to unload returned items, or a passenger pickup location to pick up a passenger to be transported to a destination).
assigning the ride seeker one of the delivery vehicles that differs from a delivery vehicle having a longest estimated transport time; (Javidan ¶132, 137 the item delivery system 606 may use any one or a combination of delivery vehicle routing techniques, including route optimization algorithms and/or machine-learning techniques, for determining the delivery routes for a delivery vehicle 608 and/or fleet of delivery vehicles 608. For instance, the item delivery system 606 may optimize delivery routes for delivery vehicles 608, using one or more cost-based optimization techniques that take into account the relevant (e.g., cost-related) variables, including one or more of the vehicle driving distance and/or driving time, the number of item pickup locations (e.g., warehouses or fulfillment centers), the number of delivery locations, the length of delivery time windows at each location, the amount of energy (fuel, electricity, etc.) used by the delivery vehicles 608, and/or the anticipated delivery times for each user/item, etc. The item delivery system 606 may be configured to enforce one or more predetermined delivery requirements, such as a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) constraint and/or a Last-In-Last-Out (LILO) constraint for items and/or passengers.).
the assigned one of the delivery vehicle travels to at least one of the boarding position or the destination after delivering a first package of the packages and before delivering a second package of the packages; (Javidan ¶146 when the delivery vehicle 608 and/or the item delivery system 606 determines that the delivery vehicle 608 should be driven to a different location (1106: Yes), then at 1107 the delivery vehicle 608 may be controlled again to drive to a new location. In various examples, the new location may be the next location in a delivery route, an item pick-up location (e.g., merchant warehouse) to receive a new load of items for delivery, an item drop-off location (e.g., merchant retail location or return certain) to unload returned items, or a passenger pickup location to pick up a passenger to be transported to a destination).
Although Javidan teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly disclose calculating an estimate transport time for each vehicle that includes travel from boarding position to destination, however Watanuki teaches:
based on the delivery point information, calculating an estimated transport time for each delivery vehicle the estimated transport time being an estimated value of a time the delivery vehicle takes to travel from the boarding position to the destination in a case where the delivery vehicle travels to the boarding position and the destination while the delivery vehicle is delivering a package to the delivery points of the packages; (Watanuki Claim 1 the controller 27 of the control device 2 performs processing to obtain information on a request to transport passengers as a first dispatch request, processing to obtain information on a request to transport luggage as a second dispatch request, and a process to obtain information on a request to transport luggage as a second dispatch request. A process of calculating a first travel route, which is a travel route for the vehicle 3 based on the information of the first vehicle dispatch request, and a process of calculating the first travel route, which is the travel route on which the vehicle 3 travels, based on the information of the first vehicle dispatch request, and a process of calculating the first travel route, which is the travel route on which the vehicle 3 travels, based on the information of the second vehicle dispatch request. The process of acquiring the information on the unloading point and the estimated value of the loading/unloading cost, which is the cost required for loading and unloading the cargo transported by the vehicle 3 at the loading/unloading point between the start point and the end point of the first travel route, are a process of calculating according to the loading/unloading point; a process of calculating a second driving route by changing the first driving route so as to pass through the loading/unloading point when the loading/unloading cost satisfies a predetermined allowable condition).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan’s autonomous delivery robots and calculate a first travel route of Watanuki as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan and acquire the information on the unloading point and the estimated value of the loading/unloading cost, which is the cost required for loading and unloading the cargo transported by the vehicle 3 at the loading/unloading point between the start point and the end point of the first travel route as taught in Watanuki.
(B) As per Claim 2:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein among the delivery vehicles, the delivery vehicle having the longest estimated transport time is referred to as a reference delivery vehicle; the processing circuitry is configured to, when determining a delivery vehicle that is assigned to the ride seeker, assign the ride seeker one of the delivery vehicles excluding the reference delivery vehicle that delivers packages to fewest delivery points while traveling from the boarding position to the destination; (Javidan ¶130-134 for scenarios involving delivering items directly to (or collecting items directly from) recipient locations, the item delivery system 606 may determine the delivery route based on user/recipient data associated with each of the recipient locations. For example, the item delivery system 606 may receive requested delivery times and/or locations for each recipient. A recipient may provide, via a delivery request or other user inputs, a delivery location (e.g., home or work address) and requested delivery time, or multiple alternate locations and corresponding time windows (e.g., a work address for delivery between 2-4 pm, or a home address for delivery between 5-7 pm, etc.). The item delivery system 606 may determine a delivery route that is compatible with the requested delivery data for all recipients, so that a delivery vehicle 608 may successfully complete a delivery to each recipient location. If all items designed for pickup at a shared delivery hub are picked-up before the ending time of the designated delivery window, then the item delivery system 606 and/or the delivery vehicle 608 may re-optimize the delivery route to take into account the additional available time. Delivery route re-optimization also may be performed on-the-fly, in response to location tracking data for the item recipients, and/or in response to changes in traffic conditions, weather conditions, or road conditions, etc.).
(C) As per Claim 5:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute creating a first delivery schedule such that time to complete the delivery of the packages to all of the delivery points is the shortest; (Javidan ¶131 the item delivery system 606 may optimize the delivery route for a delivery vehicle 608 to deliver items to a number of recipient locations, using any one of multiple different optimization algorithms and techniques. In some examples, a delivery route may be optimized with respect to the maximum number of item deliveries and/or returns, or the maximum number of recipient locations assigned to a delivery vehicle 608. In other examples, a delivery route may be optimized with respect to minimizing driving time, driving distance, power consumption, and/or with respect to maximizing the time that the vehicle may spent at each recipient location).
creating the delivery schedule of the target delivery vehicle by correcting the first delivery schedule based on the boarding position and the destination; (Javidan ¶134 in addition to the initial delivery route determination and optimization, the item delivery system 606 and/or the delivery vehicle 608 may re-determine and/or re-optimize the delivery route based on data received during the execution of a delivery route by the delivery vehicle 608. For instance, in response to requests for delivery modifications, cancelations, or item rejections that are received while the delivery vehicle 608 is on-route, the item delivery system 606 and/or the delivery vehicle 608 may re-optimize the delivery route on-the-fly, using similar or identical techniques to those used for the initial route determination while taking into account the requested delivery modification or cancelation).
(D) As per Claim 6:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to correct the first delivery schedule so that the delivery vehicle can deliver the package to another delivery point while heading for the destination after delivering the package to the delivery point near the boarding position; (Javidan ¶135 the delivery vehicle 608 (or merchant system 604 or item delivery system 606) may transmit a notification to the recipient's mobile device 602 asking the user 601 to confirm a pick-up time and location. In some instances, if the user 601 does not respond within a threshold amount of time, or if the user rejects the pick-up time/location, the delivery vehicle 608 may re-route to a next stop or delivery location. In some examples, if the recipient does not complete the delivery in a predetermined amount of time after the delivery vehicle 608 arrives at the recipient location, the delivery vehicle 608 may proceed to the next recipient location to maintain compliance with the times and locations of the delivery route).
(E) As per Claim 10:
Although Javidan teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly disclose assign a delivery vehicle having the shortest transport time to a passenger, however Watanuki teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to assign a delivery vehicle having the shortest estimated transport time among the delivery vehicles to the ride seeker; (Watanuki PAGE 7 the vehicle allocation plan setting unit 66 selects the third route candidate or the fourth route candidate as the second travel route. For example, the vehicle allocation plan setting unit 66 may select the third route candidate with the shortest delay time from among the third route candidates or the fourth route candidates).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan’s autonomous delivery robots and have the vehicle allocation plan setting unit select the third route candidate or the fourth route candidate as the second travel route of Watanuki as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan and have the vehicle allocation plan setting unit 66 may select the third route candidate with the shortest delay time from among the third route candidates as taught in Watanuki.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20210256466 to Javidan et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Javidan”) in view of WO 2024057714A1 to Watanuki (hereinafter referred to as “Watanuki”) and in further view of US 20230342706 to Hawley et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hawley”).
(A) As per Claim 3:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein a delivery vehicle assigned to the ride seeker is referred to as a target delivery vehicle, the processing circuitry is configured to execute creating a delivery schedule of the target delivery vehicle based on the boarding position, the destination, and the delivery point information on the target delivery vehicle, based on the delivery schedule of the target delivery vehicle, acquiring a delivery number that is a number of delivery points to which the target delivery vehicle delivers packages while traveling from the boarding position to the destination; (Javidan ¶100-107 the item delivery system 606 may determine the route for a delivery vehicle 608 based on delivery requests and preferences from the recipients of the items stored in the delivery vehicle 608. Delivery routes may include a single stop at a centralized delivery location, or multiple stops each of which is accessible to one or more of the recipients. After a delivery route has been determined, the item delivery system 606 may instruct the delivery vehicle 608 to drive the determined route, including stops at each of the delivery locations for the duration of the time windows that have been determined for each stop. In some examples a delivery vehicle 608 may include a passenger compartment as well as one or more locking storage containers. In such cases, an item delivery system 606 may determine a delivery route that includes an item pick-up point, a recipient pick-up point, and a destination at which the recipient is to be dropped-off with the delivered item).
Although Javidan in view of Watanuki teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly disclose providing a rider with an incentive for delayed arrival, however Hawley teaches:
providing the ride seeker with a larger incentive as the delivery number is increased; (Hawley ¶28 it will be understood that pickup or delivery of some packages may be prioritized based on urgency for delivery (and likely requiring a corresponding increase in the fee collected). For example, a person may be willing to pay more to deliver a package containing important tax documents within an hour to their accountant than a rider would. This could make larger discounts for riders more worthwhile (where the rideshare operator still turns more profit) and even potentially just sending the rideshare vehicle with a high importance package without a passenger, dependent on the increased fee that can be obtained).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan in view of Watanuki’s autonomous delivery robots and have pickup or delivery of some packages may be prioritized based on urgency for delivery of Hawley as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan in view of Watanuki and make larger discounts for riders more worthwhile as taught in Hawley.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20210256466 to Javidan et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Javidan”) in view of WO 2024057714A1 to Watanuki (hereinafter referred to as “Watanuki”) in further view of US 20230342706 to Hawley et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hawley”) and in even further view of US 20050278063 to Hersh et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hersh”).
(A) As per Claim 4:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein a delivery vehicle assigned to the ride seeker is referred to as a target delivery vehicle; (Javidan ¶100-107 the item delivery system 606 may determine the route for a delivery vehicle 608 based on delivery requests and preferences from the recipients of the items stored in the delivery vehicle 608. Delivery routes may include a single stop at a centralized delivery location, or multiple stops each of which is accessible to one or more of the recipients. In some examples a delivery vehicle 608 may include a passenger compartment as well as one or more locking storage containers. In such cases, an item delivery system 606 may determine a delivery route that includes an item pick-up point, a recipient pick-up point, and a destination at which the recipient is to be dropped-off with the delivered item).
based on the reference route and the delivery point information about a delivery point to which the target delivery vehicle delivers a package, acquiring a separation distance from the reference route to a position of the delivery point to which the target delivery vehicle delivers the package while the target delivery vehicle is traveling from the boarding position to the destination; (Javidan ¶100-101 the item delivery system 606 and/or delivery vehicle 608 may modify delivery routes on-the-fly based on item pick-ups, and/or delivery modification requests or cancelations received from recipients while the delivery vehicle 608 is on-route).
Although Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly disclose providing a rider with an incentive for adding additional stops with increased distance, however Hawley additionally teaches:
providing the ride seeker with a larger incentive as the separation distance is increased; (Hawley ¶47 referring now to FIG. 4 , which illustrates an example method of the present disclosure. In step 402, a user with an item for pickup can request that a rideshare vehicle to pick up the item if the rideshare vehicle has a route that passes nearby. A distance threshold can be used, such as one block, one mile, or another distance value. If the pickup or drop off is outside of a specified tolerance of a current trip, the method can include a step 410 of executing a discount pricing optimization model to negotiate package pickup and/or drop off discounts to the rider, which can be proportional to the impact to the rider).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley’s autonomous delivery robots and have a user with an item for pickup can request that a rideshare vehicle to pick up the item if the rideshare vehicle has a route that passes nearby of Hawley as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley and have a distance threshold can be used so if the pickup or drop off is outside of a specified tolerance of a current trip, the method can include a discount pricing optimization model to negotiate package pickup and/or drop off discounts to the rider, which can be proportional to the impact to the rider as additionally taught in Hawley.
Although Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly disclose having a reference route that assumes travel from boarding to destination, however Hersh teaches:
the processing circuitry is configured to execute creating a reference route that is a traveling route of a delivery vehicle when the delivery vehicle is assumed to travel from the boarding position to the destination without stopping at the delivery point; (Hersh ¶63 the standard pricing algorithm and priorities will be followed using these rules. (1) The origin and the final destination will be used to calculate the actual miles to billing purposes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley’s autonomous delivery robots and have the standard pricing algorithm and priorities of Hersh as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan in view of Watanuki and in further view of Hawley and have the origin and the final destination will be used to calculate the actual miles to billing purposes as taught in Hersh.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20210256466 to Javidan et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Javidan”) in view of WO 2024057714A1 to Watanuki (hereinafter referred to as “Watanuki”) in further view of JP7358075B2 to Kaneko (hereinafter referred to as “Kaneko”).
(A) As per Claim 7:
Although Javidan in view of Watanuki teaches an autonomous delivery vehicle including locking storage containers used for item deliveries, rejections, returns, and/or third-party fulfillment as well as passenger compartment to transport one or more passengers, it doesn’t expressly calculating the longest travel distance of a route from boarding position to destination, however Kaneko teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the estimated transport time such that the longer a travel distance of a travel route from the boarding position to the destination is, the longer the estimated transport time is; (Kaneko PAGE 5 note that when calculating the vehicle arrival time range, the vehicle arrival time may be calculated depending on the environment of the travel route from the current position of the vehicle to the boarding point. For example, when the infrastructure information acquisition unit 15 acquires traffic road information and determines that there is a congested section on the travel route, the arrival time estimation unit 13 calculates the vehicle arrival time taking into account the delay time due to the traffic congestion. Calculate, further, when the road to the boarding point is a slope, the arrival time estimating unit 13 obtains information from the map database 16 that the travel route is a slope, and then adjusts the travel time calculated as described above. The traveling time may be calculated by multiplying by a predetermined coefficient (the coefficient is a value larger than 1). This is because it is thought that the traveling speed is slower when the road is sloped than when the road is flat).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Javidan in view of Watanuki’s autonomous delivery robots and when calculating the vehicle arrival time range, the vehicle arrival time may be calculated depending on the environment of the travel route from the current position of the vehicle to the boarding point of Kaneko as both are analogous art which teach solutions having an item delivery system that confirms the delivery details as taught in Javidan in view of Watanuki and calculates the vehicle arrival time taking into account the delay time due to the traffic congestion as taught in Kaneko.
(B) As per Claim 8:
Javidan expressly discloses:
further comprising a communication device configured to transmit and receive information to and from an external communication device via a communication network; (Javidan ¶75 the communications connection(s) 510 may include physical and/or logical interfaces for connecting the vehicle computing device 504 to another computing device or a network, such as network(s) 538. For example, the communications connection(s) 510 may enable Wi-Fi-based communication such as via frequencies defined by the IEEE 802.11 standards, short range wireless frequencies such as Bluetooth, cellular communication (e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, 5G, etc.) or any suitable wired or wireless communications protocol that enables the respective computing device to interface with the other computing device(s)).
(C) As per Claim 9:
Javidan expressly discloses:
wherein the communication device is configured to transmit information on the target delivery vehicle to information terminal of the ride seeker via the communication network; (Javidan ¶99 the item delivery system 606 and/or delivery vehicle 608 also may transmit a notification to a user 601 (via the recipient's mobile device 602) when the delivery vehicle 608 is approaching the particular delivery location designated for the user 601).
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 02/04/2026