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 .
Claims 1 thru 10 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 23 is missing connecting lines for the method steps 420 to END and 445 to 460. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0001], the application number 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, the word “receive” should be “receiving”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving from a first user device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The first user device is interpreted as a cellular phone, a smart phone, a laptop computer, a tablet personal computer (PC), a netbook, a smart watch, smart glasses, and smart jewelry (spec P[0071]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 thru 10 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 1 recites the limitation "the first user" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 thru 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method for providing a shared vehicle service performed by a server, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of autonomous vehicle locations by receiving an autonomous vehicle location from each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles;
receiving, from a first user device, a first call message comprising a request to bring a first product which the first user has a right thereof, wherein the first call message comprises a first location where the first product is located and a receiving location where the first user picks the first product up;
in response to receive the first call message,
calculating a delivery fee of the first product based on the first location and the receiving location;
selecting a first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user based on the first location and the plurality of autonomous vehicle locations; and
transmitting a first dispatching message comprising the first location and the receiving location to the first autonomous vehicle to carry the first product to the receiving location.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person can determine a price to charge a customer based on locations and a distance for delivery, and then select a vehicle to perform the delivery. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A method for providing a shared vehicle service performed by a server (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of autonomous vehicle locations by receiving an autonomous vehicle location from each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
receiving, from a first user device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a first call message comprising a request to bring a first product which the first user has a right thereof (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), wherein the first call message comprises a first location where the first product is located and a receiving location where the first user picks the first product up;
in response to receive the first call message,
calculating a delivery fee of the first product based on the first location and the receiving location;
selecting a first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user based on the first location and the plurality of autonomous vehicle locations; and
transmitting a first dispatching message comprising the first location and the receiving location to the first autonomous vehicle to carry the first product to the receiving location (extra-solution activity (data outputting) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a server and a first user device, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining a plurality of autonomous vehicle locations by receiving an autonomous vehicle location from each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; receiving a first call message comprising a request to bring a first product which the first user has a right; and transmitting a first dispatching message comprising the first location and the receiving location to the first autonomous vehicle to carry the first product to the receiving location, these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; data outputting) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitations of a server and a first user device, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining a plurality of autonomous vehicle locations by receiving an autonomous vehicle location from each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles; receiving a first call message comprising a request to bring a first product which the first user has a right; and transmitting a first dispatching message comprising the first location and the receiving location to the first autonomous vehicle to carry the first product to the receiving location, these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data (obtaining locations and receiving a request) to a process that only recites calculating a delivery fee and selecting a vehicle to perform the delivery (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of providing a shared vehicle service. Similarly, adding a final step of transmitting information (transmitting a message) to a process that only recites calculating a delivery fee and selecting a vehicle to perform the delivery (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of providing a shared vehicle service. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 10 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 2 - receiving, from the first autonomous vehicle, an information indicating the first autonomous vehicle arrives at the first location (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and transmitting, to the first user device, a notification message indicating the first autonomous vehicle arrives at the first location (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3 - transmitting, to the first user device, an authentication message (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) comprising at least one of a barcode, a quick response (QR) code, radio frequency identification (RFID), a password, a pattern, and biometric recognition for receiving the first product (defining the type of message).
Claim 4 - obtaining an information related to the first autonomous vehicle (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) comprising at least one of a vehicle type information, a vehicle license number information and a vehicle color information (defining the type of information); and transmitting, to the first user device, a notification message comprising the information related to the first autonomous vehicle (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 - transmitting, to the first user device, security information for unlocking a door of the first autonomous vehicle or accessing a trunk of the first autonomous vehicle (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 - the delivery fee of the first product is calculated based on a distance between the first location and the receiving location.
Claim 7 - the delivery fee of the first product is calculated further based on a distance between a first autonomous vehicle location and the first location.
Claim 8 - the first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user is selected further based on a service state of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicle.
Claim 9 - the service state of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicle is one of an available state or an in-use state (defining the service state).
Claim 10 - the selecting the first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user comprises: selecting the first autonomous vehicle from among the plurality of autonomous vehicles whose service state is in the available state to be dispatched to the first user based on the first location and the plurality of autonomous vehicle locations.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Woulfe et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0043001 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Woulfe et al disclose the claimed method for providing a shared vehicle service performed by a server, a process to generate route data for a self-driving delivery vehicle to cause the self-driving delivery vehicle to operate on a roadway system to rendezvous with a receiving vehicle (Figure 6), computer architecture 700 for a computer capable of executing the en route delivery scheduling service 102, and/or any program components with an architecture for a server computer, or network of server computers (Figure 7 and P[0091]), comprising:
the claimed obtaining a plurality of autonomous vehicle locations by receiving an autonomous vehicle location from each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles, “The en route delivery scheduling service 102 may include a route generation engine 116 to generate route data 118 for the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 and/or the receiving vehicle 106. In some implementations, the route generation engine 116 may generate route data 118(2) that indicates a route for the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 to travel along to rendezvous with the receiving vehicle 106 within the rendezvous area 114. The route data 118(2) for the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 may be determined based at least in part on route data 118(1) that indicates a route that the receiving vehicle 106 is expected to travel along toward the destination-location 112. In some implementations, the route generation engine 116 may receive the route data 118(1) from the client computing device 104 and/or the receiving vehicle 106. For example, the route data 118(1) may be included within the order data that indicates the selection of the product for delivery to the receiving vehicle 106. As another example, the en route delivery scheduling service 102 may “ping” the receiving vehicle 106 and/or the client computing device 104 with a request for the route data 118(1) in response to receiving the order data.” P[0034], the delivery vehicles 108 include location data 146 (Figure 1), “the route generation engine 116 may analyze the product source data 120 with respect to the route data 118(1) to determine a route that includes a first segment associated with navigating the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 from an initial-location to the product source 110” P[0035], and “multiple self-driving delivery vehicles 108 are located and for which the en route delivery scheduling service 102 tracks locations of and generates product acquisition options” (P[0063] and Figure 3);
the claimed receiving a first call message form a first user device comprising a request to bring a first product, “At block 602, a system may receive order data that indicates a selection of a product for delivery to a receiving vehicle that is en route to a destination-location.” (P[0078] and Figure 6), and “The client computing device 104 may include a product acquisition application 134 to enable the user to generate the order data that indicates the selection of the product for delivery to the receiving vehicle 106.” P[0041], wherein
the claimed first call message comprises a first location where the first product is located and a receiving location where the first user picks the first product up, “At block 604, the system may determine first route data corresponding to the receiving vehicle. In some implementations, the first route data may be included, in whole or in part, with the order data. For example, determining the first route data at block 604 may comprise parsing the first route data from the order data received at block 602. In some implementations, the first route data may be generated by the system based on the order data received at block 604, user data 124 received from a client computing device 104, and/or directly from a navigation module 136 corresponding to the receiving vehicle and/or a client computing device. In some implementations, the first route data indicates a first route that the receiving vehicle is expected to navigate along to arrive at a destination-location.” (P[0079] and Figure 6), and “the order data 150 may correspond to a selection of an individual product-acquisition option of a plurality of product acquisition options 154 that are provided by the en route delivery scheduling service 102. For example, as illustrated, product acquisition application 134 is shown to provide preliminary order data 150(P) to the en route delivery scheduling service 102. The preliminary order data 150(P) may indicate one or both of a selection of the product 152 and/or a classification associated with the product 152.” P[0048];
in response to receiving the first call message:
the claimed calculating a delivery fee of the first product based on the first location and the receiving location, “the delivery cost for any individual product-acquisition option may be based on factors such as a distance of a self-driving delivery vehicle from a product source, traffic conditions that the self-driving delivery vehicle is likely to encounter, whether other orders exist such that the self-driving delivery vehicle can fulfill several deliveries within or near a rendezvous area, etc.” P[0065], and different delivery costs are determined for each vehicle 108(1) thru 108(3) location related to options 1 thru 3 (Figure 3);
the claimed selecting a first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user based on the first location and the plurality of autonomous vehicle locations, “Based on the preliminary order data 150(P), the en route delivery scheduling service 102 determines a plurality of product-acquisition options 154 and, ultimately, provides these product-acquisition options 154 to the client computing device 104. The user may use the client computing device 104 to compare the plurality of product-acquisition options 154 and, ultimately, to select an individual product-acquisition.” (P[0064] and Figure 3); and
the claimed transmitting a first dispatching message comprising the first location and the receiving location to the first autonomous vehicle to carry the product to the receiving location, “Based on the user selection, the client computing device 104 transmits order data 150 to the en route delivery scheduling service 102 which then prompts dispatching of a particular one of the self-driving delivery vehicles that correspond to the selected product-acquisition option.” (P[0064] and Figure 3), and “At block 606, the system may generate second route data to cause the self-driving delivery vehicle to rendezvous with the receiving vehicle along the first route while the self-driving delivery vehicle is carrying the product. Generating the second route data may be responsive to receiving the order data.” (P[0081] and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 3 Woulfe et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed transmitting an authentication message to the first user device comprising at least one of a barcode, a QR code, RFID, a password, a pattern or biometric recognition for receiving the first product, “As used herein, a vehicle identifier (also referred to herein as a “vehicle ID”) can refer to any unique identifier useful in identifying a particular vehicle. The vehicle ID may be associated with a particular non-autonomous vehicle or autonomous vehicle, and may be provided to the system. In one aspect, the vehicle ID can include a unique identifier such as a Vehicle Identification Number, license plate information, electronic signals transmitted from a vehicle, specific indicia or paint schemes, symbols (e.g., on a roof or upper surface of a vehicle), specific heat signature, and/or specific audio signature. In another aspect, the vehicle ID can include a digital identifier. The digital identifier can include a SIM card ID, ESN, MEID, IMEI, a phone number or other identifier associated with a wireless communication device onboard the vehicle. Such wireless communication devices can include wireless telephony devices, cellular telephones, cellular communications systems, digital communications systems, satellite communications systems, or any other electronic device associated with or onboard the vehicle.” P[0015], and “identifying the receiving vehicle by an active mechanism refers generally to identifying the receiving vehicle based on a signal that is actively generated by the receiving vehicle. Exemplary actively generated signals include, but are not limited to, electromagnetic signals such as radio signals, light emission patterns such as headlights and taillights flashed according to a predetermined pattern” P[0016] (claimed pattern).
Regarding claim 4 Woulfe et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed obtaining an information related to the first autonomous vehicle comprising at least one of vehicle type, vehicle license number or vehicle color, “the techniques for identifying the receiving vehicle by a passive mechanism generally involves identifying the receiving vehicle based on one or more characteristics of the receiving vehicle. Exemplary characteristics include, but are not limited to, a license plate number, a make and model of the receiving vehicle, the color of the receiving vehicle, a paint scheme of the receiving vehicle, or any other suitable characteristic” P[0016]; and
the claimed transmitting a notification message to the first user device comprising information related to the first autonomous vehicle, “the self-driving delivery vehicle may identify the receiving vehicle based upon a body type and color (e.g., the self-driving delivery vehicle may identify one or more 2017 FORD EXPLORER vehicles that are black in color within the rendezvous area) and may furthermore identify an individual one of these identified vehicles as the receiving vehicle based on a specific signal (e.g., radio signals and/or a predetermined light emission pattern as described elsewhere herein) emitted by the receiving vehicle” P[0017].
Regarding claim 6 Woulfe et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the delivery fee of the first product is calculated based on a distance between the first autonomous vehicle location and the receiving location, “the delivery cost for any individual product-acquisition option may be based on factors such as a distance of a self-driving delivery vehicle from a product source, traffic conditions that the self-driving delivery vehicle is likely to encounter, whether other orders exist such that the self-driving delivery vehicle can fulfill several deliveries within or near a rendezvous area, etc.” P[0065], and “the consumer may be provided with a first option to receive the en route delivery on a most direct route between the initial-location and the destination-location for a first delivery cost in addition to a second option to receive the en route delivery on a slightly less direct route for a second delivery cost that is less than the first cost. The route deviation data may indicate how deviation from the most direct route will impact an estimated time of arrival at the destination-location as well as varying delivery costs associated with receiving delivery at different rendezvous areas along the different routes.” P[0080].
Regarding claim 7 Woulfe et al disclose the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the delivery fee of the first product is calculated based on a distance between the first autonomous vehicle location and the first location, “the delivery cost for any individual product-acquisition option may be based on factors such as a distance of a self-driving delivery vehicle from a product source, traffic conditions that the self-driving delivery vehicle is likely to encounter, whether other orders exist such that the self-driving delivery vehicle can fulfill several deliveries within or near a rendezvous area, etc.” P[0065].
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0043001 A1 in view of Kaufman Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0350024 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Woulfe et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising:
the claimed receiving an information indicating the first autonomous vehicle arrives at the first location from the first autonomous vehicle, “after the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 arrives at the product source 110, the product 152 may be transferred from the product source 110 to the self-driving delivery vehicle 108. For example, one or more staff members of the product source 110 may manually place the product within the compartment 142. Once the product 152 is received from the product source 110, the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 may proceed to navigate along a second segment of the second route to rendezvous with the receiving vehicle 106 within the rendezvous area 114.” P[0056].
Woulfe et al do not explicitly teach the claimed transmitting a notification message indicating the first autonomous vehicle arrives at the first location to the first user device, but do generate the route data 118(1) and provide it to the receiving vehicle and/or client computing device 104 P[0047]. The route data would include when the vehicle arrives to pickup the product. Kaufman teaches, “the method 500 proceeds to operation 506, where the MaaS system 116 informs the user 106 of the baggage location” (P[0046] and Figure 5), the baggage of Kaufman equates to the product of Woulfe et al. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process to generate route data for a self-driving delivery vehicle of Woulfe et al with the informing the user of the baggage location of Kaufman in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, enable delivery of the baggage to the user at the final baggage destination specified and at a specified delivery time (Kaufman P[0035]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0043001 A1 in view of Skaaksrud et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0287063 A1.
Regarding claim 5 Woulfe et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above). Woulfe et al do not teach the claimed transmitting security information for unlocking a door of the first autonomous vehicle or accessing a trunk of the first autonomous vehicle to the first user device. Such information would be included in a notification that the vehicle has reached the destination. Skaaksrud et al teach, “At step 6325, method 6300 proceeds with notifying, by the modular mobile autonomy control module, the authorized delivery recipient of the deliverable item of an approaching delivery” (P[1146] and Figure 63), “step 6325 may have method 6300 proceeding with transmitting a delivery notification message (e.g., with an estimated time of arrival) to an external wireless node once the modular autonomous bot apparatus assembly is within the threshold notification range of the destination location identified by the destination information, where the external wireless node is related to the authorized delivery recipient according to the destination delivery information” P[1147], “At step 6330, method 6300 proceeds with the modular mobile autonomy control module monitoring, using its wireless radio transceiver, for delivery recipient authentication input. If delivery recipient authentication input is received, as monitored by the modular mobile autonomy control module, from a delivery recipient disposed external to the modular autonomous bot apparatus assembly at the destination location, then step 6330 proceeds to decision step 6335 where the modular mobile autonomy control module determines if the delivery recipient input received in step 6330 correlates to the delivery authentication information (i.e., indicating that the delivery recipient providing the delivery recipient authentication input is the authorized delivery recipient). Thus, when the delivery recipient input correlates to the deliver authentication information (e.g., matches to at least part of the authentication information), step 6335 proceeds to step 6340.” (P[1148] and Figure 63), and “At step 6340, method 6300 proceeds with the modular cargo storage system providing selective access to the deliverable item within the modular cargo storage system only when the delivery recipient authentication input correlates to the delivery authentication information indicating that the delivery recipient providing the delivery recipient authentication input is the authorized delivery recipient. In more detail, step 6340 may provide selective access to the deliverable item with the modular mobile autonomy control module actuating (or otherwise activating or causing movement of) an actuated cargo door disposed on the modular auxiliary power module to an open position once the delivery recipient authentication input correlates to a portion of the authentication information related to the dispatched logistics operation.” (P[1152] and Figure 63). The access to the modular delivery storage area door within the vehicle equates to the claimed accessing the trunk. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process to generate route data for a self-driving delivery vehicle of Woulfe et al with the authenticating access to delivery items of Skaaksrud et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, provide more extensive, robust, adaptive, and interactive autonomous logistics vehicles and provide a cost effective, dynamic, innovative solution that addresses efficient delivery of items (Skaaksrud et al P[0006]).
Claim(s) 8 thru 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe et al Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0043001 A1 in view of Bradley et al Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0332535 A1.
Regarding claim 8 Woulfe et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above). Woulfe et al do not teach the claimed first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched for the first user is selected further based on a service state of the plurality of autonomous vehicles. But, if a vehicle were unavailable to perform the delivery for Woulfe et al (already performing another delivery), then the user/client would not be provided that vehicle as an option to be selected. Bradley et al teach, “The trip manage component can determine the position and the state of the vehicle or system 100 in connection with the performance of the transport service (e.g., what stage of the transport service the vehicle is at). For example, the state of the system 100 may previously have been in an available state, which corresponds to a state in which the vehicle can be assigned the transport service from the service arrangement system 190. When the system 100 receives the service instructions 191, the trip manage component can place the system 100 in a different state, e.g., on route state, which corresponds to the vehicle traveling to the pickup location. Similarly, each time the trip manage component determines that the transport service has initiated or ended, the trip manage component can place the system 100 in a respective state (e.g., change from the on route state to the on trip state, or change from the on trip state to completed or available state, respectively).” P[0030], and “The service arrangement system 190 can use the received information from the system 100 to provide updated information about the transport service to the requesting user (e.g., the location of the AV and/or the current state of the AV, etc.).” P[0031]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process to generate route data for a self-driving delivery vehicle of Woulfe et al with the identified vehicle state of Bradley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine when the transport service has initiated or completed and when the AV is available to provide another transport service (Bradley et al P[0031]).
Regarding claim 9 Woulfe et al and Bradley et al teach the claimed method of claims 1 and 8 (see above). Woulfe et al do not teach the claimed service state of each of the plurality of autonomous vehicles is available or in-use. Bradley teach, a respective state of the AV includes an on route state, a on trip state, or completed or available state P[0030]. The on route and on trip states equate to the claimed in-use state, and the completed and available state equate to the claimed available state. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the process to generate route data for a self-driving delivery vehicle of Woulfe et al with the on trip and available vehicle states of Bradley et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine when the transport service has initiated or completed and when the AV is available to provide another transport service (Bradley et al P[0031]).
Regarding claim 10 Woulfe et al teach the claimed selecting the first autonomous vehicle to be dispatched comprises selecting the first autonomous vehicle whose service state is available based on the first location and the plurality of autonomous vehicle locations, Figure 3 includes three options for different autonomous vehicles to perform the delivery, each vehicle has a different location, route, and fee for delivery to the product destination (Figure 3, and P[0063] thru P[0065]). The examiner assumes that only the available options are presented to the user for selection.
Related Art
The examiner points to Park et al PGPub 2020/0051194 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Park et al is directed to methods for autonomous vehicles to deliver passengers/items to locations (see Figures 6A and 6B), and charging a fee for delivery (P[0079] and Figure 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662