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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 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 of a delivery robot service provider (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites:
An operating method of a delivery robot service provider, the operating method comprising:
receiving a delivery request from a user device;
generating delivery information on the delivery request;
assigning a delivery robot that performs the delivery request;
transmitting the delivery information to the delivery robot; and
sharing a current location of the delivery robot and a loading status of goods with the delivery robot service provider while the delivery robot is delivering the goods according to the delivery information.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, “generating delivery information on the delivery request” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data to determine the necessary information for a delivery.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An operating method of a delivery robot service provider, the operating method comprising:
receiving a delivery request from a user device;
generating delivery information on the delivery request;
assigning a delivery robot that performs the delivery request;
transmitting the delivery information to the delivery robot; and
sharing a current location of the delivery robot and a loading status of goods with the delivery robot service provider while the delivery robot is delivering the goods according to the delivery information.
Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving a delivery request from a user device;” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of mere data gathering. In particular, the receiving a destination as an input is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “assigning a delivery robot that performs the delivery request; transmitting the delivery information to the delivery robot; and sharing a current location of the delivery robot and a loading status of goods with the delivery robot service provider while the delivery robot is delivering the goods according to the delivery information.” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of mere data transmitting. In particular, the transmitting and sharing is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 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 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 limitations do 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
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to
be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim further narrows the “delivery information” element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such element does not take claim 2 and 9 out the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claim 2 and 9 is not patent eligible under the
same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-7 and 10-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim further narrows the communication and data sharing element of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such element does not take claims 3-7 and 10-14 out the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 3-7 and 10-14 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it recites an apparatus having substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reason. Additionally it recites “a processor; and a memory storing instructions…”, but these are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because they are generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Javidan et al. (US 20210256472 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Javidan teaches:
An operating method of a delivery robot service provider, the operating method comprising:
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see below)
PNG
media_image1.png
753
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving a delivery request from a user device;
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see above, element 701. Paragraph [0091] states “In FIG. 7A, at 701, a user 601 may request or order an item from a merchant system 604 (e.g., via a merchant website) using mobile device 602 (or other computing device).”)
generating delivery information on the delivery request;
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see above, element 702 and 703)
assigning a delivery robot that performs the delivery request;
transmitting the delivery information to the delivery robot; and
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see above, element 704, 705, and 706)
sharing a current location of the delivery robot and a loading status of goods with the delivery robot service provider while the delivery robot is delivering the goods according to the delivery information.
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see above, element 708. Paragraph [0091] states “At 708, the delivery vehicle 608 may transmit a delivery notification to the item delivery system 606, such as an on-route status notification or a notification that the delivery vehicle 608 has reached the delivery location. At 709, the item delivery system 606 may relay the delivery notification to the merchant system 604, which may relay the delivery notification to the user 601 at 710.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Javidan teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Javidan further teaches:
wherein the delivery information comprises:
at least one of a pick-up location of the goods, a delivery location of the goods, a delivery time of the goods, information on an infrastructure that the delivery robot needs to interwork with for the delivery of the goods, a delivery route of the goods, and a type of the goods.
(Javidan – Paragraph [0128] states “For example, in addition to considering the item pickup times/locations and the item delivery times/locations, the item delivery system 606 may determine optimal delivery routes based on characteristics of the items loaded in the delivery vehicle 608, such as sizes and weights of the items, the specific transportation requirements of the items (e.g., fragile items, sensitive items, perishable or temperature-controlled items, etc.), and the capacity limitations and features of the delivery vehicle 608 (e.g., weight capacity, fuel/energy efficiency, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 7,
Javidan teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Javidan further teaches:
further comprising:
transmitting a loading status of the goods or an unloading status of the goods to a corresponding user device.
(Javidan – Fig. 7A, see above, element 708. Paragraph [0091] states “At 708, the delivery vehicle 608 may transmit a delivery notification to the item delivery system 606, such as an on-route status notification or a notification that the delivery vehicle 608 has reached the delivery location. At 709, the item delivery system 606 may relay the delivery notification to the merchant system 604, which may relay the delivery notification to the user 601 at 710.”)
Regarding claim 8, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. In addition, Javidan teaches a processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the apparatus to perform a plurality of operations (Paragraph [0076] states “In some examples, the drive system controller may include one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled with the one or more processors. The memory may store one or more components to perform various functionalities of the drive system(s) 514.”)
Regarding claim 9, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan et al (US 20210256472 A1) in view of LUONG (US 20250013974 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Javidan teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Javidan does not teach the limitations of claim 3.
LUONG teaches:
wherein the delivery robot service provider retains information on an infrastructure that interworks with the delivery robot.
(LUONG – Paragraph [0067] states “The pickup and delivery information is decoded by command processing unit 832. Then microprocessor 835 uploads a predetermined service steps such as steps (D cycle: 102d-104d or 202-204; PU cycle: 101pu-103pu and 207-208) and trajectories (422, 423, 622, 623) associated with GPS unit 823 into autonomous driving processor 821, 3D map model 822, and elevator processessing module 801.”)
Javidan and LUONG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot automated delivery systems. Therefore, 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 Javidan with LUONG. It would have been obvious to combine a robot delivery service that performs a delivery upon the request of a user with the delivery robot interworking with infrastructure along the route because the robot would not be able to get all the way to the user without the ability to interact with infrastructure along the route. This allows the system to be more efficient and allows the user to not have to go out of their way to meet the robot in another location.
Regarding claim 4,
Javidan teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Javidan does not teach the limitations of claim 4.
LUONG teaches:
further comprising:
interworking with an infrastructure located on a delivery route of the goods.
(LUONG – Fig. 12, see below)
PNG
media_image2.png
731
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Javidan and LUONG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot automated delivery systems. Therefore, 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 Javidan with LUONG. It would have been obvious to combine a robot delivery service that performs a delivery upon the request of a user with the delivery robot interworking with infrastructure along the route because the robot would not be able to get all the way to the user without the ability to interact with infrastructure along the route. This allows the system to be more efficient and allows the user to not have to go out of their way to meet the robot in another location.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan et al (US 20210256472 A1) in view of LUONG (US 20250013974 A1) and further in view of Oda et al. (US 12032387 B2).
Regarding claim 5,
Javidan and LUONG teach the limitations of claim 4.
However, Javidan and LUONG do not teach the limitations of claim 5.
Oda teaches:
further comprising:
determining an access priority to the infrastructure between the delivery robot and another delivery robot based on a presence of the other delivery robot competing with the delivery robot to access the infrastructure.
(Oda – At [6:19-23] it states “When the mobile robot 100 has a lower priority, the mobile robot 100 stands by in a predetermined standby area until another mobile robot 100 having a higher priority completes the work at the destination or the passage through the waypoint.”)
Javidan, LUONG, and Oda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot automated delivery systems. Therefore, 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 Javidan and LUONG with Oda. It would have been obvious to combine a robot delivery service that performs a delivery upon the request of a user and the delivery robot interworking with infrastructure along the route with interacting with another delivery robot to determine priority because this allows for the robots to avoid colliding with each other and work in a more efficient manner to both accomplish their deliveries.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javidan et al (US 20210256472 A1) in view of LUONG (US 20250013974 A1) and further in view of Oda et al. (US 12032387 B2) and further in view of Malshe et al. (US 11720850 B1).
Regarding claim 6,
Javidan, LUONG, and Oda teach the limitations of claim 5.
However, Javidan and LUONG do not teach the limitations of claim 6.
Oda further teaches:
wherein the determining comprises:
determining the access priority by interworking with another delivery robot
(Oda – At [6:19-23] it states “When the mobile robot 100 has a lower priority, the mobile robot 100 stands by in a predetermined standby area until another mobile robot 100 having a higher priority completes the work at the destination or the passage through the waypoint.”)
Oda teaches determining priority between multiple delivery robots. However, Javidan, LUONG, and Oda do not teach another delivery robot service provider when the other delivery robot is managed by the other delivery robot service provider.
Malshe teaches:
wherein the determining comprises:
interworking with another delivery robot service provider when the other delivery robot is managed by the other delivery robot service provider.
(Malshe – At [14:53-58] it states “The one or more service provider computers 814 may also contain communication connection interface(s) 822 that allow the one or more service provider computers 814 to communicate with a data store, another computing device or server, user terminals, and/or other devices on the networks 808.”)
Javidan, LUONG, Oda, and Malshe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated delivery systems. Therefore, 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 Javidan, LUONG, and Oda with Malshe. It would have been obvious to combine a robot delivery service that performs a delivery upon the request of a user and the delivery robot interworking with infrastructure along the route with interacting and another delivery robot to determine priority with interacting with another service provider because this allows for the robots to avoid colliding with each other and work in a more efficient manner to both accomplish their deliveries.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an apparatus with limitations substantially the same as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights