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 action is in reply to the amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 21, 24, 30, 33, and 39 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous objections thereto; therefore, these objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous 112(b) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s substantive 101 arguments begin by addressing Step 2A, Prong One considerations, firstly addressing the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant’s assertions of this category as being qualified by the term “certain,” while correct, is irrelevant here as the identification of particular limitations as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity under the Prong One analysis explicitly do so based on the enumerated sub-categories of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people;” as such neither the previous nor present Prong One analyses “expand[] beyond these enumerated sub-groupings…”
Regarding the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions, Applicant lists various examples of limitations which fall within this sub-category (found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)) and argues that “the subject matter of the present claims is entirely dissimilar to these examples,” and further that “[n]or does the Office Action provide any indication of how the present claims have any similarities with the MPEP’s examples. Thus, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case that any claim is patent ineligible.” These assertions illustrate a fundamental misapprehension of the standards of the Prong One analysis, as nowhere in the referenced sections of the MPEP or elsewhere is it indicated that a prima facie case need to analogize the limitations of an invention to the examples laid out in the MPEP. These examples are just that: examples. They do not comprise the entire scope of this enumerated sub-category, and need not be invoked at all in a 101 rejection. Further, as these sub-categories are more clearly defined in the MPEP than the overall categories to which they belong, finding that limitations fall within such sub-categories constitutes an explanation as to why said limitations recite the overall categories of abstract idea.
The argument that “[t]he Office Action sets out no explanation of how the claimed technique could be classified as any of ‘agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations’” similarly appears to invent a requirement of a prima facie 101 rejection which does not exist. The MPEP states that rejections must explain why limitations are categorized as judicial exceptions, e.g., abstract ideas such as certain methods of organizing human activity. Saying that they fall within the bounds of sub-categories thereof which are explicitly recognized in the MPEP as belonging to particular categories of abstract ideas does this. Nowhere in the MPEP is further explanation regarding such recognized functionality required. While this level of detail is not required to be provided in the rejections themselves, applicants are free to make arguments that claim limitations in fact do not fall within such enumerated sub-categories, as Applicant does here. Despite the vague and conclusory manner in which Applicant presently makes such arguments, Examiner nonetheless provides this level of detail in his responses below.
Subsequent to these seeming invention of an inaccurate requirements for a prima facie rejection, Applicant asserts that “the Office Action fails to follow the guidance provided by the USPTO for examining a claim to determine whether it is directed to an abstract idea. More specifically, the USPTO guidance indicates that each individual claim element should be examined when determining eligibility under 101” (Applicant’s emphasis), invoking Examples 47-49 of the most recent PEG Update. Before addressing the merits of this, Examiner notes that this argument improperly commingles the standards of Prong One (recitation of judicial exceptions, performed on a limitation-by-limitation basis) with those of Prong Two (what a claim as a whole is “directed to”). These are distinct steps with distinct standards, and should not be so conflated. Regarding the merits of this Prong One procedural argument, Examiner disagrees. Each individual claim limitation was indeed examined, as is clear from the distinct lists of claim limitations falling within each of the three categories of abstract idea in the rejections themselves. The Examples of the PEG are illustrative of how claims should be examined based on the legal standards of 101 (to which both the previous and present 101 rejections conform), not rigid templates whose format must be aped by 101 rejections. Here again, Applicant is seemingly inventing requirements which simply do not exist.
Critically in the argument addressed immediately above, Applicant states the following: “Here, the Office Action merely recites a subset of the claimed method to conclude that the claim is ‘directed to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.’ Office Action at 4-5.” This is untrue, as the previous Office Action does not contain this language, and further this language would not be in keeping with the standards of subject matter eligibility under 101 (ie: what a claim is “directed to” is the purview of Step 2A, Prong Two rather than Prong One, and under the standards thereof, a claim need not be “directed to” a particular category of abstract idea, but rather an unparsed abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)). A core function of the USPTO is to maintain clarity of the record regarding patent prosecution, and such misquotations do egregious harm to this goal. For the sake of maintaining a clear record, Examiner must insist that Applicant only provide proper and correct quotations in the future.
Regarding the content of the claimed invention, summarily, the independent claims disclose requests from various aircraft providing entities to provide transportation services, analyzing these requests to predict performance related to these provider entities, selecting at least one provider entity whose request is to be accepted relative to transportation of a package, informing the at least one provider entity of the acceptance of the respective request/instructing said provider to execute transportation operations, tracking the progress of said transportation operations, updating the itinerary/assignments of the transportation service based thereon, and sending an alert informing a user of this update. The transportation of goods is and would be readily understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to be a commercial activity, as such transportation services are almost universally offered and provided in return for monetary consideration. This is further acknowledged throughout Applicant’s specification. Indeed, these steps are so foundationally commercial that Examiner cannot fathom how Applicant could reasonably conclude otherwise, as in the present arguments. Further, the requests to provide such transportation services and the selection/acceptance of such transportation services constitute the most basic steps of forming a legal contract: offer and acceptance. Beyond this, the tracking of progress and modification of the itinerary/assignments would further constitute a breach of this legal contract and remedy for said breach. As such, these steps would also constitute legal interactions. Based at least on the above discussion, the limitations unquestionably recite “commercial or legal interactions.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments related to claim limitations which recite a patent-ineligible concept rather than merely involve them (in which Applicant yet again improperly uses “directed to” language, which has no place in the Prong One analysis), Applicant is mistaken. The claims recite a series of affirmative steps which do not merely involve certain methods of organizing human activity, but rather actively recite them, e.g., at least in the form of commercial advertisements and interactions, formation of legal agreements, and breach and remedy of such agreements as discussed above. Indeed, Applicant’s own summary language in this argument (ignoring the continued conflation with Prong Two standards) of “the subject matter of claim 21 is further directed to analyzing a plurality of candidate service requests, selecting at least one request, and initiating performance of the aerial transport using the provider’s aircraft” supports the finding that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity rather than refutes it. Applicant’s entirely unsupported and conclusory statements that distinct limitations do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity constitute no more than an unexplained “I disagree,” failing to provide proper arguments and giving Examiner no understanding of how Applicant reaches these unsupported conclusions and thus nothing particular to which he may respond. Merely saying something does not make it so. Further, Examiner disagrees for the reasons above.
Applicant next argues against the recitation of the separate abstract idea category of mental processes, asserting that the findings of the previous Office Action on this topic are “a stark deviation from the provided guidance around the ‘mental process’ exception category.” Particularly, Applicant argues that specifically stressed steps of the claims as presently amended (ie: “[t]he human mind cannot practically compute ‘a predicted performance;’” “[n]or is the human mind equipped to determine ‘based on the initiated performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft, progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service,’ let alone to compute ‘an updated selected transportation service, wherein the updated selected transportation service is associated with a new aircraft’ or transmit using APIs ‘an alert of the updated selected transportation service to a user device’”) cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees.
Similar to arguments presented above regarding the separate category of certain methods of organizing human activity, these are purely conclusory, unexplained assertions, and thus constitute improper arguments. Again, merely stating something is not practically performable in the human mind does not make it so. As is clear from the content of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), a human mind cannot practically perform a step when it is not equipped to perceive the recited variables or manipulate such variables in the manner claimed, e.g., “a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17.” This is clearly not the case in the present claims.
Here, and especially in light of the examples of this functionality set forth in the original disclosure, there is nothing in the determination of a predicted performance based on historical data associated with an aircraft, nor the determination of progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service (determining that “the operator is not making substantial progress toward fulfilling the requested transportation service,” in Applicant’s own Paragraph 0093 provided as support for this functionality, would easily be discernable in the human mind in any number of ways, such as, e.g., by way of noting that a delivery is late or delayed, that the carrier has not reached a certain expected milestone by a certain time, etc.), nor updating the selected transportation service (e.g., by creating a new match to a different provider, as is also disclosed in Paragraph 0093), nor in the alerting of relevant parties to this updated transportation service. Indeed, the only non-abstract piece of any of Applicant’s argued functionalities is the transmission of said alert via APIs specifically to a user device, though the underlying functionality of providing such an alert remains abstract, even as explicitly claimed as occurring by way of computer elements (see, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), entitled “A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process,” which is entirely devoted to refuting the erroneous notion that mere computer implementation of an abstract step somehow prevents recitation of mental processes). In the context in which they are claimed, the APIs and user device constitute no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, e.g., use of computer elements as tools to perform a judicial exception. Further, Applicant’s vague analogy here to Example 38 is unpersuasive, as there is no reasonable analogy to be made between the mentally understandable and performable steps of the present invention and the purely technological simulation of audio mixer circuit steps in Example 38.
Applicant next argues against the recitation of the separate abstract idea category of mathematical concepts, asserting that the findings of the previous Office Action on this topic are “a stark deviation from the provided guidance around the ‘mathematical concepts’ exception category.” Particularly, Applicant quotes passages of subsections of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and lists examples set forth therein, but makes no substantive argument as to how any element of the claims, either as previously or presently drafted, fails to meet the standards set forth in the quoted passages, and thus fails to make a cogent argument to this effect. Indeed, Applicant’s quoted passage of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), making clear that a limitation need not recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation (where instead, synonyms such as “determining” or “performing” may have the same effect), supports the finding that the claims recite mathematical concepts rather than refutes it. Regarding the two limitations of the independent claims found to recite mathematical concepts, these limitations use the word “computing” in place of “calculating,” though the effect remains the same.
Additionally, similar to the arguments addressed above regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, Applicant argues that the previous Office Action fails to “provide any indication of how the present claims have any similarities with the MPEP’s examples. Thus, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case that any claim is patent ineligible.” Here, as above, Applicant invents requirements for Prong One which simply do not exist, as nowhere in the MPEP is a requirement that a claim limitation must be analogized to MPEP examples established. Applicant is encouraged to read the MPEP carefully in order to properly understand its contents. The Office Actions’ statements that particular limitations, “as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts” and “[i]f a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas” is sufficient for a prima facie finding of recitation of mathematical concepts.
Further, Applicant once again vaguely attempts to analogize to Example 38, yet this analogy is no more reasonable or persuasive than made above in relation to the mental processes category of abstract idea.
Applicant next moves to arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two. Before addressing the merits of these arguments, Examiner notes the following misapprehension of 101 standards: “[e]ven if claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is not-Applicant asserts that the claim recites a combination of elements such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Here, Applicant again appears to conflate the standards of Step 2A, Prongs One and Two in similar manner as called out above. If a claim integrates a recited judicial exception into a practical application, it is not “directed to” said judicial exception; this terminology is synonymous. This language appears to be attempting to say that even if Claim 21 is not eligible under the Prong One analysis, it is eligible under the Prong Two analysis. If this is an accurate assumption, this language should say “even if Claim 21 recites an abstract idea…” in order to properly invoke these standards. See MPEP 2106.04(II) for more information.
Particularly regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant asserts that the claims embody an improvement to computer functionality or other technology. Applicant invokes Example 48, correctly identifying the standards that such an improvement to a technology may be achieved based on description of such an improvement in the specification which is reflected in the claims themselves. However, the improvements argued to be found in Paragraphs 0066, 0093, and 0119 (both as described therein and as paraphrased in the present Remarks) do not constitute an improvement to a technology, though Examiner agrees that in large part the content of these paragraphs is now reflected in the claims as presently amended.
To this effect, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that improvements to a technology are “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Here, what is described in Applicant’s cited passages of the original disclosure at best constitutes an improvement to an abstract concept, claimed at a high level as being carried out via computer elements, rather than an improvement to a technology itself.
Regarding Paragraph 0066, “customiz[ing] the aerial vehicle service request to increase the likelihood of acceptance” is a purely abstract, commercial endeavor rather than a technological one, and may be practiced in the same manner manually to achieve the same results. The argued “lower wasted computing resources on generating requests with a high likelihood of denial” merely cloaks this abstract concept in technological language, e.g., the wasted “computing resources” in this hypothetical translates directly to wasted time/effort spent on manual generation and evaluation of such requests which are unlikely to be accepted (again, purely an abstract, business decision). Regarding Paragraph 0093, “automatically prompting a re-handing of the rider’s request to a different operator while using the same itinerary” (by which it can be assumed that Applicant does not consider the changing of an originally selected operator to a replacement operator to be a change in itinerary) is again a purely abstract, business concern and decision, ie: if the originally hired transportation operator is not performing to a “sufficient” standard (and Examiner notes that the original disclosure appears to fail to provide any objective standard as to what Applicant contemplates the subjective term “sufficient” indicates here; hence, it is fortunate that the claims do not claim this functionality in more detail, as such drafting would require rejection under 112(b) which appears uncurable based on the content of the original disclosure) or, in other words, was in breach of their contract for providing such transportation services, that operator would be replaced by another who hopefully would provide effective transportation services. Regarding Paragraph 0119, keeping relevant parties (e.g., a customer) informed of modifications in the transportation plan is also a purely abstract, commercial concern, e.g., improving customer interaction or satisfaction in relation to providing a commercial service. Claiming these steps as occurring at a high level by way of computer implementation does nothing to make this otherwise. As has long been judicially recognized, mere automation of a manual process is insufficient to show such an improvement (see Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Nowhere in any of these passages or associated arguments is an improvement specifically to a technological aspect of the present invention (e.g., the technological functioning of the claimed computer elements; the aircraft themselves) found. Rather, these merely reflect abstract improvements to abstract concepts (e.g., the creation of attractive bids to perform transportation services, replacing a service provider in the event of poor performance/breach of contract, and keeping relevant parties informed of changes in the performance of a provided transportation service). These are a far cry from the technological improvements set forth in the vaguely referenced Example 48 (or rather, Claims 2 and 3 thereof).
Applicant next provides arguments in relation to the standards of Step 2B. Applicant’s first arguments to this effect are more arguments that the claims embody an improvement to a technology (which could have also been made in relation to Step 2A, Prong Two above). Applicant quotes essentially every limitation of the independent claims as presently amended, and asserts that these limitations “ensure[] aircrafts meet the itineraries of users” thereby. As with the asserted improvements addressed above, monitoring the progress of a commercial service to ensure compliance with agreed upon/contractual performance markers, and taking corrective action where compliance is not achieved/breach occurs is a purely abstract, commercial, business-related improvement rather than a technological one.
Applicant also argues that “the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception,” spending multiple pages quoting standards and making arguments in relation thereto. However, neither the 101 rejection of the previous Office Action nor the updated 101 rejections below identify any claimed element as reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, instead finding that the recited additional elements variously constitute either mere instructions to apply a judicial exception or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, these arguments are entirely irrelevant here.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 analyses have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are based entirely on newly claimed language, and as such need not be addressed here. Further, these arguments are rendered moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 21, 30, and 39, the limitations of accessing first request data associated with a first entity, the first request data comprising a request for aircraft to provide a first candidate transportation service of the first entity; accessing second request data associated with a second entity, the second request data comprising a request for the aircraft to provide a second candidate transportation service of the second entity; computing a predicted performance of the aircraft for the first candidate transportation service of the first entity and the second candidate transportation service of the second entity, wherein the predicted performance is determined based on historical data associated with the aircraft; based on the predicted performance, computing a selected transportation service for the aircraft, wherein the select transportation service comprises at least one of: (a) at least a portion of the first candidate transportation service of the first entity; or (b) at least a portion of the second candidate transportation service of the second entity; transmitting data indicative of the selected transportation service to one or more other computing systems; initiating performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft; determining, based on the initiated performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft, progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service; based on the progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service, computing an updated selected transportation service, wherein the updated selected transportation service is associated with a new aircraft; and transmitting an alert of the updated selected transportation service to a user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of accessing first request data associated with a first entity, the first request data comprising a request for aircraft to provide a first candidate transportation service of the first entity; accessing second request data associated with a second entity, the second request data comprising a request for the aircraft to provide a second candidate transportation service of the second entity; computing a predicted performance of the aircraft for the first candidate transportation service of the first entity and the second candidate transportation service of the second entity, wherein the predicted performance is determined based on historical data associated with the aircraft; based on the predicted performance, computing a selected transportation service for the aircraft, wherein the select transportation service comprises at least one of: (a) at least a portion of the first candidate transportation service of the first entity; or (b) at least a portion of the second candidate transportation service of the second entity; transmitting data indicative of the selected transportation service to one or more other computing systems; initiating performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft; determining, based on the initiated performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft, progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service; based on the progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service, computing an updated selected transportation service, wherein the updated selected transportation service is associated with a new aircraft; and transmitting an alert of the updated selected transportation service to a user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of computing a predicted performance of the aircraft for the first candidate transportation service of the first entity and the second candidate transportation service of the second entity, wherein the predicted performance is determined based on historical data associated with the aircraft; and based on the predicted performance, computing a selected transportation service for the aircraft, wherein the select transportation service comprises at least one of: (a) at least a portion of the first candidate transportation service of the first entity; or (b) at least a portion of the second candidate transportation service of the second entity, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors; one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions executable by the one or more processors; a computing system comprising one or more computing devices; an aircraft; one or more APIs; and one or more other computing systems. One or more processors; one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions executable by the one or more processors; a computing system comprising one or more computing devices; one or more APIs; and one or more other computing systems, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). An aircraft, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 22-29, 31-38, and 40, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 21, the system of Claim 30, or the product of Claim 39, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 21, 30, and 39 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 22, 31, and 40 disclose accessing, by the computing system, data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and based on the data associated with performance of the selected transportation service, computing, by the computing system, an updated predicted performance of the aircraft (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 23 and 32 disclose wherein the data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service comprises data captured via one or more sensors of the aircraft (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 22 and 31), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 24 and 33 disclose wherein the data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: (i) route, (ii) an energy usage, (iv) payload estimate, (v) maintenance estimate, (vi) one or more vehicle locations, or (vi) one or more times associated with the one or more vehicle locations (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 22 and 31), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 25 and 34 disclose based on the updated predicted performance of the aircraft, computing, by the computing system, data indicating at least one of: a continuance of at least a portion of the selected transportation service or a discontinuance of at least a portion of the selected transportation service (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 26 and 35 disclose wherein computing the predicted performance of the aircraft comprises computing at least one of: (i) an aircraft performance associated with an anticipated route, (ii) an estimated energy usage, (iii) an anticipated compensation parameter, (iv) a payload estimation, or (v) a maintenance estimation (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 21 and 30), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 27 and 36 disclose wherein the data indicative of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: an acceptance of at least the portion of the first candidate transportation service or an acceptance of at least the portion of the second candidate transportation service (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 21 and 30), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 28 and 37 disclose wherein the data indicative of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: a rejection of at least the portion of the first candidate transportation service or a rejection of at least the portion of the second candidate transportation service (further defines the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 21 and 30), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 29 and 38 disclose establishing access, by the computing system via a network, to one or more backend services of a computing system of the first or second entity (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to facilitate the performance of the selected transportation service (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24, 26-27, 29-33, 35-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (PGPub 20160098677) (hereafter, “Kim”) in view of Gil (PGPub 20170316375) (hereafter, “Gil”) and Ghatage et al (PGPub 20180096297) (hereafter, “Ghatage”).
Regarding Claims 21, 30, and 39, Kim discloses:
one or more processors (¶ 0182-0183, 0185; all of the processes described herein may be embodied in, and fully automated via, software code modules executed by a computing system that includes one or more general purpose computers or processors);
one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations (¶ 0182-0183, 0186; all of the processes described herein may be embodied in, and fully automated via, software code modules executed by a computing system that includes one or more general purpose computers or processors; the code modules may be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium or other computer storage device);
accessing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, first request data associated with a first entity, the first request data comprising a request for aircraft to provide a first candidate transportation service of the first entity (¶ 0012, 0074, 0077-0081, 0086, 0093-0094, 0110, 0163, 0182-0183; Figs. 2B, 4A; the system includes a data store comprising geographical area data store entries associated with a plurality of predetermined geographical areas, carrier data store entries associated with a plurality of carriers, etc.; a carrier data store can include any entity that is capable of the shipment and delivery of packages; the carrier data store can associate each carrier with one or more of the predetermined geographical areas; the carrier data store can include characteristics associated with each carrier that are used by the shipment coordination service to coordinate the shipment of packages; such characteristics can include, but not limited to, pricing, shipment timeframes, areas of operation and other operational characteristics relevant to each carrier; the carrier, data store can include information used by the carrier interface module to communicate with the carriers; carriers may include air carriers; each segment can be associated with a different carrier where one or more carriers are not associated with the shipment coordination service);
accessing, by the computing system, second request data associated with a second entity, the second request data comprising a request for the aircraft to provide a second candidate transportation service of the second entity (¶ 0012, 0074, 0077-0081, 0086, 0093-0094, 0110, 0163, 0182-0183; Figs. 2B, 4A; the system includes a data store comprising geographical area data store entries associated with a plurality of predetermined geographical areas, carrier data store entries associated with a plurality of carriers, etc.; a carrier data store can include any entity that is capable of the shipment and delivery of packages; the carrier data store can associate each carrier with one or more of the predetermined geographical areas; the carrier data store can include characteristics associated with each carrier that are used by the shipment coordination service to coordinate the shipment of packages; such characteristics can include, but not limited to, pricing, shipment timeframes, areas of operation and other operational characteristics relevant to each carrier; the carrier, data store can include information used by the carrier interface module to communicate with the carriers; carriers may include air carriers; each segment can be associated with a different carrier where one or more carriers are not associated with the shipment coordination service);
computing, by the computing system, a predicted performance of the aircraft for the first candidate transportation service of the first entity and the second candidate transportation service of the second entity (¶ 0004-0005, 0013-0014, 0022-0023, 0031, 0069, 0074, 0086, 0090, 0100, 0148, 0163; Figs. 1A-1B, 8; the method also includes determining a shipment route from the origin to the destination that includes an origin shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin to an origin processing center; at least one intermediate shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin processing center to an intermediate destination, and a destination shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the intermediate destination to the destination; the method also includes selecting an origin carrier for the origin shipment segment, wherein the origin carrier is selected from a first group of carriers that are associated with the first predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the method also includes selecting a destination carrier for the destination shipment segment, wherein the destination carrier is selected from a second group of carriers that are associated with the second predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the shipment coordination service can utilize resources of one or more carriers other than itself to deliver a package from any location to any destination; the company can select one or more carriers based on the customer input; the company can optimize selection of the combination according to requirements of the customer, e.g., if the customer wants to send a package at the lowest cost possible, the company can provide a combination of origin carrier and destination carrier that offers the lowest rates for the delivery; the method can also include selecting a carrier for the destination area (destination carrier) from the second group of plurality carriers that are associated with the second predetermined geographical area using the at least one of size information and weight information of the package, wherein the destination carrier is in charge of the shipment of the package from a predetermined location within the destination area to the destination (destination shipment); the shipment coordination service can communicate with the carriers to coordinate the shipment of the package);
based on the predicted performance, computing, by the computing system, a selected transportation service for the aircraft, wherein the select transportation service comprises at least one of: (a) at least a portion of the first candidate transportation service of the first entity; or (b) at least a portion of the second candidate transportation service of the second entity (¶ 0004-0005, 0013-0014, 0022-0023, 0031, 0069, 0074, 0086, 0090, 0100, 0148, 0163; Figs. 1A-1B, 8; the method also includes determining a shipment route from the origin to the destination that includes an origin shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin to an origin processing center; at least one intermediate shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin processing center to an intermediate destination, and a destination shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the intermediate destination to the destination; the method also includes selecting an origin carrier for the origin shipment segment, wherein the origin carrier is selected from a first group of carriers that are associated with the first predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the method also includes selecting a destination carrier for the destination shipment segment, wherein the destination carrier is selected from a second group of carriers that are associated with the second predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the shipment coordination service can utilize resources of one or more carriers other than itself to deliver a package from any location to any destination; the company can select one or more carriers based on the customer input; the company can optimize selection of the combination according to requirements of the customer, e.g., if the customer wants to send a package at the lowest cost possible, the company can provide a combination of origin carrier and destination carrier that offers the lowest rates for the delivery; the method can also include selecting a carrier for the destination area (destination carrier) from the second group of plurality carriers that are associated with the second predetermined geographical area using the at least one of size information and weight information of the package, wherein the destination carrier is in charge of the shipment of the package from a predetermined location within the destination area to the destination (destination shipment); the shipment coordination service can communicate with the carriers to coordinate the shipment of the package);
transmitting, by the computing system using one or more APIs, data indicative of the selected transportation service to one or more other computing systems (¶ 0005, 0031, 0090, 0094, 0102; Fig. 8; the shipment coordination service can communicate with each carrier interface via the network; there can be any number of carriers that can be located anywhere and be any type of carrier (e.g., USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.); each carrier interface can have its own application programming interface (API) that allows function calls to be made to the carrier interface by the shipment coordination service; the shipment coordination service can communicate with the selected carriers to coordinate the shipment of the package from the origin address to intermediate locations to the destination); and
initiating performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft (¶ 0011, 0027, 0034, 0066, 0074, 0082-0088, 0163; Figs. 1A-1B, 3, 8; instructions for transferring the package to the origin carrier, wherein when the package is to be picked up, the instructions specify time and the pick-up location along with the identity of the origin carrier, wherein when the package is to be dropped off, the instructions provide the identity of the origin carrier and one or more drop-off locations for the origin carrier; after the transaction for shipment is complete, the customer can drop off the package to a location of the origin carrier (e.g., store) or have the origin carrier pick up the package at a particular location (e.g., the customer's home); the origin carrier delivers the package to the processing center designated in the origin carrier shipment information; the carriers ship the package based on instructions and/or information from the shipment coordination service; carriers may include air carriers).
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Gil does disclose:
wherein the predicted performance is determined based on historical data associated with the aircraft (¶ 326, 0330, 0349, 0369; the central computing entity may assign or associate one or more planned times for each parcel - along with a planned time for specific activities for the parcel, each stop of a route/flight, each route/flight, and/or the like; a planned time may be the time for handling (e.g., sorting, re-wrapping, loading, unloading, inspecting, picking up, delivering, labeling, over-labeling, engaging, disengaging, and/or the like) a parcel; each parcel, each activity, each stop of a route/flight, each route/flight, and/or the like may have or be associated with total planned times and/or additive planned times; the planned times may be based on historical information/data, such as average planned times; the estimate may also include estimated travel time between the remaining stops (e.g., ETA calculated by navigations software, distance of anticipated route * average speed, etc.); in further embodiments, the central computing entity 802 may use historical information/data regarding service times and/or travel times between stops to arrive at an estimated arrival time at the user's serviceable point); and
determining, based on the initiated performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft, progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service (¶ 0347-0348, 0354, 0369, 0378, 0434; by associating the parcels with the parcel carriers that are attached to the parcels, the central computing entity may track and monitor the position and progress of parcels and associated parcel carriers through a delivery process; messages/notifications can be provided to user computing entities based on the progress of a vehicle and/or UAV through a predetermined/configurable route/flight).
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Ghatage does disclose based on the progress toward fulfilling the selected transportation service, computing, by the computing system, an updated selected transportation service, wherein the updated selected transportation service is associated with a new aircraft (¶ 0051; the administration system, can also be configured to generate alerts, for example if an agent is scheduled to make a pickup at a certain time, but the location of the agent indicates an estimated arrival time that is a predetermined time beyond the requested pickup time; in response to generating such an alert, for example indicated via the alert icon, the administrator can re-assign attempt to re-assign the request to a new agent; such a re-assignment can be facilitated in a similar manner as the original assignment (e.g. locating real-time position of agents) and selected the optimal agent based on proximity to the pickup location and/or estimated time to arrive at the pickup location).
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Gil does disclose transmitting, by the computing system, an alert regarding a status of the transportation service to a user device (¶ 0369; messages/notifications can be provided to user computing entities based on the progress of a vehicle and/or UAV through a predetermined/configurable route/flight). Kim does not explicitly disclose but Ghatage does disclose wherein the status of the transportation service comprises the updated selected transportation service (¶ 0051; the administration system, can also be configured to generate alerts, for example if an agent is scheduled to make a pickup at a certain time, but the location of the agent indicates an estimated arrival time that is a predetermined time beyond the requested pickup time; in response to generating such an alert, for example indicated via the alert icon, the administrator can re-assign attempt to re-assign the request to a new agent; such a re-assignment can be facilitated in a similar manner as the original assignment (e.g. locating real-time position of agents) and selected the optimal agent based on proximity to the pickup location and/or estimated time to arrive at the pickup location). Kim additionally discloses wherein the transmission uses the one or more APIs (¶ 0094; each carrier interface can have its own application programming interface (API) that allows function calls to be made to the carrier interface by the shipment coordination service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transportation service monitoring and updating techniques of Gil with the transportation service matching and assignment system of Kim because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results) (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Gil are applicable to the base device (Kim), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transportation service monitoring and re-assigning techniques of Ghatage with the transportation service matching and assignment system of Kim and Gil because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Ghatage are applicable to the base device (Kim and Gil), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 22, 31, and 40, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claims 21, 30, and 39. Kim additionally discloses accessing, by the computing system, data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service by the aircraft (¶ 0105-0106, 0126, 0136, 0174; Fig. 11; the tracking module can be used to track the shipment status of a package; the tracking module can use the carrier tracking code to determine the status of the package and update the status in the shipment data store).
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Gil does disclose based on the data associated with performance of the selected transportation service, computing, by the computing system, an updated predicted performance of the aircraft (¶ 0166-0167, 0295, 0313, 0346-0348, 0362, 0364, 0369, 0378, 0390, 0427; the UAV may include GPS sensors and/or other satellite system sensors for detecting a current location of the UAV relative to an intended travel destination (e.g., a destination location and/or a vehicle); the parcel carrier computing entity may communicate with the UAV computing entity via the communications component and may exchange data/information with the UAV computing entity, for example, a state of charge of the power supply of the parcel carrier; one or more portions of the POI, event data, or recorded route/flight information can be matched with respective map or geographic records via position or GNSS and/or GPS) data associations (such as using known or future map matching, geo-coding, and/or reverse geo-coding techniques); messages/notifications can be provided to user computing entities based on the progress of a vehicle and/or UAV through a predetermined/configurable route/flight; the message/notification criteria may be based on the estimated time of arrival of carrier at the serviceable point; central computing entity (and/or the user computing entity) may identify the number of stops needing to be made before arriving at the specific consignor/consignee's serviceable point and applying a predetermined/configurable stop time estimate to calculate an estimated time of arrival at the consignor/consignee's serviceable point; the estimate may also include estimated travel time between the remaining stops (e.g., ETA calculated by navigations software, distance of anticipated route * average speed, etc.); by associating the parcels with the parcel carriers that are attached to the parcels, the central computing entity may track and monitor the position and progress of parcels and associated parcel carriers throughout a delivery process; updating a primary/secondary delivery point geo coordinate for the serviceable point based on detected geo coordinate samples).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 21.
Regarding Claims 23 and 32, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claims 22 and 31. Kim does not explicitly disclose but Gil does disclose wherein the data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service comprises data captured via one or more sensors of the aircraft (¶ 0154-0155, 0160, 0166-0167, 0295, 0313, 0346-0348, 0362, 0364, 0369, 0378, 0390, 0427; Figs. 3, 10; the UAV includes a plurality of sensors/sensing elements, including landing sensors, flight guidance sensors, one or more cameras, GPS sensors, etc.; the UAV may include GPS sensors and/or other satellite system sensors for detecting a current location of the UAV relative to an intended travel destination (e.g., a destination location and/or a vehicle); the parcel carrier computing entity may communicate with the UAV computing entity via the communications component and may exchange data/information with the UAV computing entity, for example, a state of charge of the power supply of the parcel carrier; messages/notifications can be provided to user computing entities based on the progress of a vehicle and/or UAV through a predetermined/configurable route/flight; the message/notification criteria may be based on the estimated time of arrival of carrier at the serviceable point; central computing entity (and/or the user computing entity) may identify the number of stops needing to be made before arriving at the specific consignor/consignee's serviceable point and applying a predetermined/configurable stop time estimate to calculate an estimated time of arrival at the consignor/consignee's serviceable point; the estimate may also include estimated travel time between the remaining stops (e.g., ETA calculated by navigations software, distance of anticipated route * average speed, etc.); by associating the parcels with the parcel carriers that are attached to the parcels, the central computing entity may track and monitor the position and progress of parcels and associated parcel carriers throughout a delivery process).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 21.
Regarding Claims 24 and 33, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claims 22 and 31. Kim does not explicitly disclose but Gil does disclose wherein the data associated with the performance of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: (i) route, (ii) an energy usage, (iv) payload estimate, (v) maintenance estimate, (vi) one or more vehicle locations, or (vi) one or more times associated with the one or more vehicle locations (¶ 0166-0167, 0295, 0313, 0346-0348, 0362, 0364, 0369, 0378, 0390, 0427; the UAV may include GPS sensors and/or other satellite system sensors for detecting a current location of the UAV relative to an intended travel destination (e.g., a destination location and/or a vehicle); the parcel carrier computing entity may communicate with the UAV computing entity via the communications component and may exchange data/information with the UAV computing entity, for example, a state of charge of the power supply of the parcel carrier; one or more portions of the POI, event data, or recorded route/flight information can be matched with respective map or geographic records via position or GNSS and/or GPS) data associations (such as using known or future map matching, geo-coding, and/or reverse geo-coding techniques); messages/notifications can be provided to user computing entities based on the progress of a vehicle and/or UAV through a predetermined/configurable route/flight; the message/notification criteria may be based on the estimated time of arrival of carrier at the serviceable point; central computing entity (and/or the user computing entity) may identify the number of stops needing to be made before arriving at the specific consignor/consignee's serviceable point and applying a predetermined/configurable stop time estimate to calculate an estimated time of arrival at the consignor/consignee's serviceable point; the estimate may also include estimated travel time between the remaining stops (e.g., ETA calculated by navigations software, distance of anticipated route * average speed, etc.); by associating the parcels with the parcel carriers that are attached to the parcels, the central computing entity may track and monitor the position and progress of parcels and associated parcel carriers throughout a delivery process; updating a primary/secondary delivery point geo coordinate for the serviceable point based on detected geo coordinate samples).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 21.
Regarding Claims 26 and 35, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claims 21 and 30. Kim additionally discloses wherein computing the predicted performance of the aircraft comprises computing at least one of: (i) an aircraft performance associated with an anticipated route, (ii) an estimated energy usage, (iii) an anticipated compensation parameter, (iv) a payload estimation, or (v) a maintenance estimation (¶ 0004, 0013-0014, 0022-0023, 0069, 0074, 0086, 0100, 0163; Figs. 1A-1B, 8; the method also includes determining a shipment route from the origin to the destination that includes an origin shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin to an origin processing center; at least one intermediate shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the origin processing center to an intermediate destination, and a destination shipment segment for delivery of the shipment from the intermediate destination to the destination; the method also includes selecting an origin carrier for the origin shipment segment, wherein the origin carrier is selected from a first group of carriers that are associated with the first predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the method also includes selecting a destination carrier for the destination shipment segment, wherein the destination carrier is selected from a second group of carriers that are associated with the second predetermined geographical area based, at least in part, on the shipment information received from the customer; the shipment coordination service can utilize resources of one or more carriers other than itself to deliver a package from any location to any destination; the company can select one or more carriers based on the customer input; the company can optimize selection of the combination according to requirements of the customer, e.g., if the customer wants to send a package at the lowest cost possible, the company can provide a combination of origin carrier and destination carrier that offers the lowest rates for the delivery; carriers may include air carriers).
Regarding Claims 27 and 36, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Kim additionally discloses wherein the data indicative of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: an acceptance of at least the portion of the first candidate transportation service or an acceptance of at least the portion of the second candidate transportation service (¶ 0005, 0031, 0090, 0094, 0102; Fig. 8; the shipment coordination service can communicate with each carrier interface via the network; there can be any number of carriers that can be located anywhere and be any type of carrier (e.g., USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.); each carrier interface can have its own application programming interface (API) that allows function calls to be made to the carrier interface by the shipment coordination service; the shipment coordination service can communicate with the selected carriers to coordinate the shipment of the package from the origin address to intermediate locations to the destination).
Regarding Claims 29 and 38, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Kim additionally discloses establishing access, by the computing system via a network, to one or more backend services of a computing system of the first or second entity to facilitate the performance of the selected transportation service (¶ 0008, 0090, 0094, 0102, 0105-0106, 0123-0126, 0136, 0174; Fig. 11; the shipment coordination service can communicate with each carrier interface via the network; there can be any number of carriers that can be located anywhere and be any type of carrier (e.g., USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.); each carrier interface can have its own application programming interface (API) that allows function calls to be made to the carrier interface by the shipment coordination service; the tracking module can be used to track the shipment status of a package; the tracking module can use the carrier tracking code to determine the status of the package and update the status in the shipment data store; the carriers can communicate with the shipment coordination service to provide package status updates, etc.).
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Gil, Ghatage, and Prager et al (PGPub 20180072420) (hereafter, “Prager”).
Regarding Claims 25 and 34, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claims 22 and 31. Kim does not explicitly disclose but Prager does disclose based on the updated predicted performance of the aircraft, computing, by the computing system, data indicating at least one of: a continuance of at least a portion of the selected transportation service or a discontinuance of at least a portion of the selected transportation service (Abstract; ¶ 0073, 0093-0094, 0163, 0397; Fig. 37; the use of UAVs for delivery/shipping services; when the control system determines that the payload coupling apparatus is not mechanically coupled to the payload, the control system can cause the UAV to repeat the lowering of the payload coupling apparatus and the attachment verification process in order to reattempt pickup of the payload, and in some embodiments these processes may only be repeated up to a predetermined number of times; rather than attempting to pick up the payload again, the control system may cause the UAV to abandon the pickup and navigate away; the control system may determine that the attachment verification process has been repeated a predetermined number of times without successful coupling of the payload coupling apparatus to the payload, and responsively initiate a process to cancel pickup of the payload and initiate flight of the UAV to a next, different location).
The rationale to combine Kim, Gil, and Ghatage remains the same as for Claim 21. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transportation service continuation and discontinuation techniques of Prager with the transportation service matching and assignment system of Kim, Gil, and Ghatage because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Prager are applicable to the base device (Kim, Gil, and Ghatage), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Gil, Ghatage, and Marco (PGPub 20180356239) (hereafter, “Marco”).
Regarding Claims 28 and 37, Kim in view of Gil and Ghatage discloses the limitations of Claim 21. Kim does not explicitly disclose but Marco does disclose wherein the data indicative of the selected transportation service comprises at least one of: a rejection of at least the portion of a carrier transportation service (¶ 0020, 0068; when a driver is selected to provide (or is identified as a suitable candidate for) a ride, backend system may send a notification to the driver application; the driver may have a limited amount of time to select whether the driver accepts the ride; the application may be configured by the driver to automatically accept the ride or to automatically accept the ride if certain criteria are met (e.g., fare minimum, direction of travel, minimum passenger rating, etc.); backend server selects a particular driver (e.g., based on the driver's locality with respect to the passenger's pick-up location) and sends information associated with the request to the driver; the driver indicates whether he accepts or rejects the request via his computing device). Kim additionally discloses wherein the carrier transportation service is the first candidate transportation service or the second candidate transportation service (¶ 0012, 0074, 0077-0081, 0086, 0093-0094, 0110, 0163, 0182-0183; Figs. 2B, 4A; the system includes a data store comprising geographical area data store entries associated with a plurality of predetermined geographical areas, carrier data store entries associated with a plurality of carriers, etc.; a carrier data store can include any entity that is capable of the shipment and delivery of packages; the carrier data store can associate each carrier with one or more of the predetermined geographical areas; the carrier data store can include characteristics associated with each carrier that are used by the shipment coordination service to coordinate the shipment of packages; such characteristics can include, but not limited to, pricing, shipment timeframes, areas of operation and other operational characteristics relevant to each carrier; the carrier, data store can include information used by the carrier interface module to communicate with the carriers; carriers may include air carriers; each segment can be associated with a different carrier where one or more carriers are not associated with the shipment coordination service).
The rationale to combine Kim, Gil, and Ghatage remains the same as for Claim 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transportation service provider optioning techniques of Marco with the transportation service matching and assignment system of Kim because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Marco are applicable to the base device (Kim), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20180232693 – “Autonomous Services Selection System And Distributed Transportation Database(s),” Gillen et al, disclosing a system for matching and assigning transportation carriers to respectively effectuate legs of a multi-leg transportation route
US 9830571 – “System And Method For Coordinating Transport Of Cargo,” Betancourt, disclosing a system for the selection and optioning of transportation carriers to effectuate a transportation route, in part based on calculated fuel requirements
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights