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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 12 December 2024. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the request” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the destination location” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “receiving a first request for a first payload from a first origin point” which is ambiguous. It is not clear if “a first request” is received from “a first origin point” OR “a first payload” is from “a first origin point”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 10 and 11 recite similar language as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the plurality of waypoints” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites similar language as claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for increasing delivery efficiency of an unmanned aerial vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for increasing delivery efficiency of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
receiving a first request for a first payload from a first origin point, the request including a first destination location;
determining, based on the destination location, a second payload having a request probability which exceeds a threshold;
navigating the UAV with the first payload and the second payload to the first destination location;
sending a notification indicating the second payload to each of a plurality of potential recipient devices, each recipient device located within a predetermined distance from the first destination location;
receiving a second request to deliver the second payload from a first potential recipient device of the plurality of potential recipient devices, the first potential recipient device having a second location;
updating a navigation plan of the UAV to navigate to the second location; and
delivering the first payload and the second payload.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining...”, “updating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for increasing delivery efficiency of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
receiving a first request for a first payload from a first origin point, the request including a first destination location;
determining, based on the destination location, a second payload having a request probability which exceeds a threshold;
navigating the UAV with the first payload and the second payload to the first destination location;
sending a notification indicating the second payload to each of a plurality of potential recipient devices, each recipient device located within a predetermined distance from the first destination location;
receiving a second request to deliver the second payload from a first potential recipient device of the plurality of potential recipient devices, the first potential recipient device having a second location;
updating a navigation plan of the UAV to navigate to the second location; and
delivering the first payload and the second payload.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving a first request...” “receiving a second request...”, “sending…”, “navigating…” and “delivering…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining and updating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “sending…”, “navigating…” are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data to user devices and to UAV), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “deliver the first payload and the second payload” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental “decision-making” process in a generic or general purpose using a generic delivery platform. The claim does not recite any technological improvement in UAV operation or any specific control of UAV flight hardware. Rather, the claim uses the UAV as a tool to carry out the determined delivery arrangement. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving a first request...” “receiving a second request...”, “sending…”, “navigating…” and “delivering…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that these limitations are merely receiving user request by a computing system which is a conventional and routine operation. The limitations of “sending…” and “navigating…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “sending…” is a conventional step for notifying relevant users. The “navigating…” step is a conventional step of sending navigation data to the UAV. The limitation of “deliver…” is recited at a high level which does not require controlling of the UAV or applying the updated plan, and further, the delivering of items is a conventional and well-known activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 10.
Claim 10, an apparatus claim (a non-transitory computer-readable medium), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method), but adds processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and instructions. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 11.
Claim 11, an apparatus claim (a system), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method), but adds processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and instructions. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin (US10198749) in view of Kumar (US9269103).
As to claim 1s, 10 and 11, Haskin teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions and a system for increasing delivery efficiency of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising (Haskin abstract, Fig. 1):
receiving a first request for a first payload from a first origin point, the request including a first destination location (Haskin col 3 lines 8-31: The user 110 may accordingly order an item, select a delivery method, and specify a delivery location 11, col 16, lines 13-25: user ordering an item…a delivery location…; also see abstract, Fig. 6, Fig. 7);
determining, based on the destination location, a second payload having a request probability which exceeds a threshold (Haskin col 2, lines 41-67: …a recommended item…; col 16, lines 26-67: …a risk associated with shipping a recommended item may be quantified based on…the delivery location. The risk may represent a likelihood of receiving the user’s order…a determination may be made as to whether the risk may be acceptable…the risk may be compared to a threshold…, Fig. 7, Fig. 8);
navigating the UAV with the first payload and the second payload to the first destination location (Haskin col 2, lines 6-9: The ordered item and the recommended item may be shipped to a delivery location associated with the user; col 16, lines 61-65: …At operation 606, the ordered item and the recommended item may be shipped using the delivery method. The shipment of both items may be initiated before notifying the user of the recommended item or before receiving a user order for the recommended item…, also see abstract; Fig. 6, Fig. 7);
and delivering the first payload and the second payload (Haskin col 2, lines 6-9: The ordered item and the recommended item may be shipped to a delivery location associated with the user; col 16, lines 61-65: …At operation 606, the ordered item and the recommended item may be shipped using the delivery method; also see abstract; Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Haskin further teaches the memory storing program instructions that are loadable and executable on the processors (col 12, lines 1-8).
Haskin does not explicitly teach sending a notification indicating the second payload to each of a plurality of potential recipient devices, each recipient device located within a predetermined distance from the first destination location; receiving a second request to deliver the second payload from a first potential recipient device of the plurality of potential recipient devices, the first potential recipient device having a second location; updating a navigation plan of the UAV to navigate to the second location.
Kumar is directed to creating a combined order. Kumar teaches …the first device may determine that a second device is within a threshold distance of the first device, and may send, to the second device, a communication for creating a combined order, such as for dividing a delivery fee associated with the order. A second buyer may use the second device to select a second item to order from the selected merchant. At least one of the first device or the second device may send order information to a service computing device, which may send the combined order to the first merchant and schedule a courier to deliver the order to the buyers (see at least Kumar abstract; col 2, line 14-col 4, line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haskin so as to include sending a notification indicating the second payload to each of a plurality of potential recipient devices, each recipient device located within a predetermined distance from the first destination location; receiving a second request to deliver the second payload from a first potential recipient device of the plurality of potential recipient devices, the first potential recipient device having a second location; updating a navigation plan of the UAV to navigate to the second location in view of Kumar et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that combining orders from nearby users for delivery of Kumar can be used in Haskin, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Haskin and Kumar because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to enable efficient crowdsourcing of courier services and further enable buyers to minimize delivery expenses by combining orders, and reduce energy costs/ carbon footprint of delivery vehicles (see at least Kumar Col 2, lines 1-13).
As to claims 5 and 15, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Haskin further teaches determining a remaining storage capacity of the UAV based on the first payload; and determining the second payload further based on the remaining storage capacity (Haskin col 2, lines 41-55: …if a UAV is deployed…to deliver an item and has free space, a recommended item may be selected based on the free space…; col 18, lines 33-41: …have available space…fits in that space…).
As to claims 6 and 16, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Haskin further teaches selecting the second payload from a plurality of payloads available within a predetermined distance from the first origin point (Haskin col 3, lines 42-53: the recommended item may be shipped from a facility using selected delivery method; col 18, lines 24-32: …a filtering parameter may be associated with a region containing the delivery location…).
As to claims 7 and 17, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 6 and the system of claim 16.
Haskin further teaches determining for each payload of the plurality of payloads a probability of being requested by each potential recipient device (Haskin col 16, lines 26-67: …a risk associated with shipping a recommended item may be quantified based on…the delivery location. The risk may represent a likelihood of receiving the user’s order…a determination may be made as to whether the risk may be acceptable…; Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
As to claims 8 and 18, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 7 and the system of claim 17.
Haskin further teaches generating a cluster of potential recipient devices, each potential recipient device in the cluster having a probability to request a selected payload of the plurality of payloads which exceeds a predetermined threshold (Haskin col 8, lines 37-53, col 16, lines 26-67).
As to claims 9 and 19, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 8 and the system of claim 18.
Haskin further teaches selecting the second payload based on a size of the generated cluster (Haskin col 18, lines 43-64).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haskin in view of Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cantrell (US20180239350).
As to claims 2 and 12, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11.
Kumar further teaches determining an intermediate location based on locations associated with each of the plurality of potential recipient devices; and configuring the vehicle to wait at the intermediate location until the second request is received (Kumar col 14 line 60-col 15, line 35).
Haskin further teaches UAV remains airborne when a package is released, i.e. hovering over the intermediate location (Haskin col 10, lines 4-28).
Haskin modified by Kumar does not teach UAV to hover while waiting for the second request.
Cantrell is directed to delivering merchandise to landing locations. Cantrell teaches …the UAV 202 will hover at the waypoint 106 until it can hand over control of the navigation to the remote navigational control system 206. The length of this wait interval may be determined
by certain established rules for the determining the landing order of in-flight UAVs (Cantrell para 0032, also see Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haskin so as to include UAV to hover while waiting for the second request in view of Cantrell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that UAV hovering in the air while until receiving further instructions and guidance of Cantrell can be used in Haskin, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Haskin and Cantrell because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 3 and 13, Haskin in view of Kumar and Cantrell teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12.
Cantrell further teaches selecting a waypoint from a plurality of predetermined waypoint; and configuring the UAV to hover at the waypoint instead of the intermediate location (Cantrell para 0032: the UAV will hover at the way point 106, also see Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haskin so as to include UAV to hover while waiting for the second request in view of Cantrell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Haskin and Cantrell because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 4 and 14, Haskin in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13.
Cantrell further teaches wherein the selected waypoint is closer to the intermediate location than any other waypoint of the plurality of waypoints (Cantrell para 0032: the UAV will hover at the way point 106, also see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haskin so as to include UAV to hover while waiting for the second request in view of Cantrell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Haskin and Cantrell because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights