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 filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/813,215, filed August 23, 2024. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application Nos. KR10-2024-0106238, filed August 8, 2024 and KR10-2023-0114098, filed August 30, 2023. However, it is noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 10, the claim recites:
Claim 1: A method of estimating a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
A) An operating method of a first delivery robot service provider managing a first delivery robot, the operating method comprising:
B) 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;
C) obtaining information of a second delivery robot service provider managing the second delivery robot based on the identifier of the second delivery robot; and
D) 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.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover negotiating a priority between robots , which may be performed in the human mind or by hand by determining which of the two robots should have priority, based upon objectives and constraints.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1: A method of estimating a location of a vehicle, the method comprising:
A) An operating method of a first delivery robot service provider managing a first delivery robot, the operating method comprising:
B) 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;
C) obtaining information of a second delivery robot service provider managing the second delivery robot based on the identifier of the second delivery robot; and
D) 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.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining” information, the examiner submits that obtaining information comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With particular reference to claim 10, the claim additionally recites
a processor and memory storing instruction, wherein the instruction, when executed by a process cause the processor to perform the steps of claim 1, the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “obtaining” information and implementing the method on a “computer,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d). In looking at Specification, there is no clear indication of what comprises “obtaining.” However, Fig. 7 appears to indicate a management system 29-1, which is part of a service provider, and which provides the identifiers of the robots. With respect to a “processor” and “memory,” there appears to be nothing in the Specification to indicate that these comprise generic components, as suggested in p. 3 of the Written Description.
Dependent claims 5-10 and 14-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward judicial exceptions, additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In contrast, claims 2 and 11 recite the additional steps of controlling movement of the first robot based upon the negotiated priority, and thus satisfies 35 USC 101. Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 are dependent upon either claim 2 or 11 and therefor satisfy 35 USC 101 for the same reasons.
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).
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Zhang discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further discloses further comprising: 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 2 and 11, 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.
Conclusion
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