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 Office Action Response dated April 20, 2026. Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104367, to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 10, Zhang discloses an operating method of a first delivery robot service provider managing a first delivery robot (e.g. see Abstract, wherein control method for delivery robots is provided), the operating method comprising: in response to the first delivery robot encountering a second delivery robot at an infrastructure used jointly, obtaining an identifier of the second delivery robot (e.g. see para 0052, wherein a first delivery robot R1 detects the presence of a second delivery robot R2; also see para 0073 regarding different identification processes of the second deliver robot); obtaining information of a second delivery robot service provider managing the second delivery robot based on the identifier of the second delivery robot (e.g. see para 0052, wherein based upon the identification, the first delivery robot communicates with the second delivery robot and receives information pertaining to whether the second delivery robot is performing a task (i.e. information of a second delivery robot service provider managing the second delivery robot)); and negotiating a priority for using the infrastructure between the first delivery robot and the second delivery robot based on the information of the second delivery robot service provider (e.g. see Fig. 3 (steps S307-S312), and paras 0062-0063, wherein based upon whether the second delivery robot is performing a task (i.e. negotiating a priority), the second delivery robot is either allowed to continued, stopped or moved to another location to give priority to the first delivery robot); controlling movement of the first delivery robot according to the negotiated priority (e.g. see Fig. 3 (steps S307-S312), and paras 0062-0063, wherein based upon whether the second delivery robot is performing a task (i.e. negotiating a priority), the second delivery robot is either allowed to continued, stopped or moved to another location to give priority to the first delivery robot (i.e. controlling the first delivery robot to continue moving)).
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Zhang discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the negotiating of the priority comprises: exchanging a first consensus policy of the first delivery robot for a second consensus policy of the second delivery robot (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0052, wherein the first and second delivery robots exchange priority information).
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Zhang discloses the features of claims 3 and 12, respectively, and further discloses wherein the exchanging comprises: determining whether the first consensus policy and the second consensus policy are a cooperation policy (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0052, wherein the first and second delivery robots exchange priority information; further, the communication further results that both delivery robots are performing a task at the same time (i.e. cooperation policy)).
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Zhang discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the priority is determined based on a first value function corresponding to the first delivery robot and a second value function corresponding to the second delivery robot (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0052, wherein the first and second delivery robots exchange priority information (i.e. first and second value function)).
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Zhang discloses the features of claims 5 and 14, respectively, and further discloses wherein the first value function is determined based on a service providing time of the first delivery robot, and the second value function is determined based on a service providing time of the second delivery robot (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0052, wherein the first and second delivery robots exchange priority information (i.e. first and second value function); further, the communication further results in determination that both delivery robots are performing a task at the same time (i.e. service providing time)).
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Zhang discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the priority is determined based on a first value of the first delivery robot from the first value function and a second value of the second delivery robot from the second value function (e.g. see Fig. 2, and para 0052, wherein the first and second delivery robots exchange priority information (i.e. first and second value function); further, the communication further results in determination that both delivery robots are performing a task at the same time (i.e. service providing time); further, the office notes that communication between the robots would be digital, which comprises digital values).
As per claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Zhang discloses the features of claims 7 and 16, respectively, and further discloses wherein the priority is determined such that a sum of the first value and the second value is maximized (e.g. the Office notes that a summation of the first and second values would provide a maximum value, as compared to the first and second value).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0376972, to Martin et al. (hereinafter Martin).
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Zhang discloses the features of claims 7 and 16, respectively, but fails to disclose wherein the first value is determined based on a user's satisfaction level associated with a service providing time of the first delivery robot and on the first value function, and the second value is determined based on a user's satisfaction level associated with a service providing time of the second delivery robot and on the second value function. However, Martin teaches the concept of two autonomous vehicle utilizing customer satisfaction, and priority, for sharing resources, particularly vehicle charging (e.g. see Figs. 8A-8B and 11A-11B, and para 0046). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the delivery system of Zhang to include user priority and satisfaction level for allocation of resources for the purpose of improving resource allocation.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that the control based on the status of the delivery robot R2 is different from the control through priority negotiation based on the robot service provider information. Applicant further argues that based upon para 0062 of Zhang, the control based on the delivery robot’s status in distinct concept from the control through priority negotiations based on service provider information.
In response, at the onset, the Office notes that the disputed claim feature comprises controlling movement of the first delivery robot according to the negotiated priority. Zhang discloses that based upon whether the second delivery robot is performing a task, the second delivery robot is either allowed to continue, stop or move to another location thereby giving priority to the first robot (i.e. see Fig. 3 (steps S307-S312) and paras 0062-0063). The Office maintains that the negotiation being performed, which dictates control of the second robot, is the status of the first robot wherein if the first robot is not performing a task the second robot takes priority. However, if the first robot is performing the task, then the second robot gives priority to the first robot. Accordingly, the negotiation being performed is a comparison of tasks between the first and second robots.
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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights