DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 4/29/26, Applicant, on 7/28/26, presented arguments for consideration. Claims 21-57 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 21-57 regarding abstract ideas are maintained in light of Applicant’s explanations.
The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 21-57 are applied in light of Applicant’s explanations.
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 21-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for managing a fleet of mobile assets. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 21-57).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
A method for automatically managing a fleet of mobile assets, comprising: monitoring… operational data associated with a plurality of mobile assets to determine a fleet operating pattern;
detecting… a deviation from a predetermined staggered operating pattern among at least two of the mobile assets based on the operational data;
in response to detecting the deviation, automatically generating and transmitting, … a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to adjust its operation so as to reduce the deviation from the staggered operating pattern.
Dependent claims 22-57 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 21-57 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to managing a fleet of mobile assets and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including user observation and evaluation by managing a fleet of mobile assets, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 21-57 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
"generating, by the one or more processors, a graphical display that depicts the fleet operating pattern over time," (claims 27-30) "generating, by the one or more processors, a quadrant graph display based on the operational data" (claims 45-47), "generating, by the one or more processors, an animated replay of historical operational data, wherein the replay visually depicts the movement and activity stages of the mobile assets over a selected time period," (claims 48-50), however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of analysis and review/visualization of performance metrics to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI display (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI display input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" by one or more processors… via a network " (claim 21), “receiving, via a network, location data from sensors or mobile devices situated on the mobile assets,” (claim 24), “receiving, via a network, status data from sensors or mobile devices situated on the mobile assets,” (claim 25), “storing the operational data in a database,” (claim 26), however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "network" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 21-57 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of data analysis of a fleet of mobile assets via a GUI "display", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to managing a fleet of mobile assets.
Claims 21-57 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 21-26, 32-38, 40-45, 47, and 51-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0100507 to Davidson et al. (hereafter referred to as Davidson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0047285 to Borders et al. (hereafter referred to as Borders).
As per claim 21, Davidson teaches:
A method for automatically managing a fleet of mobile assets, comprising: monitoring, by one or more processors, operational data associated with a plurality of mobile assets to determine a fleet operating pattern (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data.).
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
detecting, by the one or more processors, a deviation from a predetermined staggered operating pattern among at least two of the mobile assets based on the operational data (Paragraph Number [0089] teaches certain delivery windows in the grid include an indication that a van will be in the user's neighborhood, e.g., a house icon. Such an indication may be included where, for example, the drive time between a first existing stop and the new unassigned stop (or between the new unassigned stop and a second existing stop) is below a threshold value. Alternatively, such an icon might be displayed where, for example, the customer already has a delivery scheduled, or where it is desirable to provide incentives (financial or otherwise) to select particular windows. Paragraph Number [0090] teaches certain delivery windows may be displayed as unavailable, e.g., colored red, even though the above-described procedure would otherwise display them as available, e.g., green. This might occur, for example, where the ratio of driving time to the available slack time exceeds some threshold. Using such a threshold avoids driving extremely long distances to serve a single stop. This approach would tend to show delivery windows as available where additional stops could be accommodated on the way to the new stop. Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
in response to detecting the deviation, automatically generating and transmitting, via a network, a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to adjust its operation so as to reduce the deviation from the staggered operating pattern (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern).Paragraph Number [0079] teaches if the slack time is sufficient to accommodate insertion of the new stop without jeopardizing existing commitments to previously scheduled customers (512), the corresponding window in the grid is changed to indicate that the window is available (514)” Paragraph Number [0084] teaches if there is enough time between existing stops to drive to the new unassigned stop, park, deliver a “standard” load, and drive to the second stop without violating existing promises, e.g., the delivery window of the second stop, and if there is sufficient capacity in the van associated with the route, the associated window is presented to the user as available, e.g., the window is colored green).
Both Davidson and Borders are directed to asset tracking. Davidson discloses monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes and displaying the information of the tracked assets in a graph that displays locations of assets by time. Borders improves upon Davidson by disclosing monitoring the operating pattern to detect deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to a schedule to correct the deviations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include monitoring the operating pattern to detect deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to a schedule to correct the deviations, to efficiently optimize the transport of assets in a particular geozone.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes and displaying the information of the tracked assets in a graph that displays locations of assets by time in Davidson to further utilize monitoring the operating pattern to detect deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to a schedule to correct the deviations as disclosed in Borders, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 22, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
defining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of activity stages for the mobile assets, each activity stage corresponding to a distinct geographic area. (Paragraph Number [0078] teaches the plan time associated with a geofenced area may be used to assign a delivery route to each of a plurality of delivery vehicle drivers (Block 503c). In particular, according to various embodiments, each delivery vehicle driver may be allocated to a single geofenced area, or some combination of two or more geofenced areas, for performing package pickups and deliveries within the allocated area(s). The determination of which and what number of geofenced areas to allocate or assign to the delivery vehicle driver may depend, for example, on the overall plan time associated with the respective geofenced areas (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend within the geofenced area) and/or the plan time per package associated with each geofenced area (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend per package within the geofenced area) in combination with either an average or the actual number of shipments (pickup or delivery) associated with the geofenced area).
As per claim 23, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 22.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
wherein the activity stages comprise at least a source location, a destination location, a delivery transit region between the source and destination, and a return transit region between the destination and the source. (Paragraph Number [0078] teaches the plan time associated with a geofenced area may be used to assign a delivery route to each of a plurality of delivery vehicle drivers (Block 503c). In particular, according to various embodiments, each delivery vehicle driver may be allocated to a single geofenced area, or some combination of two or more geofenced areas, for performing package pickups and deliveries within the allocated area(s). The determination of which and what number of geofenced areas to allocate or assign to the delivery vehicle driver may depend, for example, on the overall plan time associated with the respective geofenced areas (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend within the geofenced area) and/or the plan time per package associated with each geofenced area (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend per package within the geofenced area) in combination with either an average or the actual number of shipments (pickup or delivery) associated with the geofenced area).
As per claim 24, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
receiving, via a network, location data from sensors or mobile devices situated on the mobile assets. (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data).
As per claim 25, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
receiving, via a network, status data from sensors or mobile devices situated on the mobile assets (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data).
As per claim 26, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
storing the operational data in a database (Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data).
As per claim 32, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein monitoring the operational data comprises determining timing between arrivals and departures of the mobile assets at one or more geographic boundaries. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 33, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 32.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein detecting a deviation comprises determining that spacing between at least two of the mobile assets falls below a predetermined threshold as the mobile assets move through the activity stages. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 34, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein detecting a deviation comprises determining that at least one of the mobile assets is traversing a route out of order with respect to other mobile assets. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 35, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 34.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
wherein detecting traversal out of order comprises determining when a first mobile asset crosses a boundary between two activity stages before a second mobile asset crosses the same boundary (Paragraph Number [0078] teaches the plan time associated with a geofenced area may be used to assign a delivery route to each of a plurality of delivery vehicle drivers (Block 503c). In particular, according to various embodiments, each delivery vehicle driver may be allocated to a single geofenced area, or some combination of two or more geofenced areas, for performing package pickups and deliveries within the allocated area(s). The determination of which and what number of geofenced areas to allocate or assign to the delivery vehicle driver may depend, for example, on the overall plan time associated with the respective geofenced areas (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend within the geofenced area) and/or the plan time per package associated with each geofenced area (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend per package within the geofenced area) in combination with either an average or the actual number of shipments (pickup or delivery) associated with the geofenced area).
As per claim 36, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 34.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein detecting traversal out of order comprises determining when a first mobile asset reaches a destination before another mobile asset reaches the destination.. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 37, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein the corrective update is specific to a particular mobile asset and comprises information indicating a required adjustment to restore the staggered operating pattern. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 38, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, how many mobile assets are present in each activity stage (Paragraph Number [0078] teaches the plan time associated with a geofenced area may be used to assign a delivery route to each of a plurality of delivery vehicle drivers (Block 503c). In particular, according to various embodiments, each delivery vehicle driver may be allocated to a single geofenced area, or some combination of two or more geofenced areas, for performing package pickups and deliveries within the allocated area(s). The determination of which and what number of geofenced areas to allocate or assign to the delivery vehicle driver may depend, for example, on the overall plan time associated with the respective geofenced areas (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend within the geofenced area) and/or the plan time per package associated with each geofenced area (e.g., the amount of time it is expected that the driver will spend per package within the geofenced area) in combination with either an average or the actual number of shipments (pickup or delivery) associated with the geofenced area).
As per claim 40, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein the corrective update is transmitted to an operator associated with the mobile asset. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 41, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein the corrective update is received by a data gathering apparatus of the mobile asset, and wherein the data gathering apparatus is operable to modify activities of the mobile asset.. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 42, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
receiving fuel usage data from at least one of the mobile assets (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data. Paragraph Number [0081] teaches the average distance traversed per unit (e.g., liter or gallon) of fuel (e.g., gasoline) used by the delivery vehicle 100).
determining fuel efficiency for a route based on the fuel usage data (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data. Paragraph Number [0081] teaches the average distance traversed per unit (e.g., liter or gallon) of fuel (e.g., gasoline) used by the delivery vehicle 100).
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
sending a route adjustment notification to the mobile assets based on the fuel efficiency (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 43, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 22.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
wherein at least one of the activity stages comprises multiple sub-geozones (Paragraph Number [0053] teaches the zoning information received may include, for example, a designation of whether the geographic area as a whole, or sub-areas within the geographic area, are zoned for open space, residential, agricultural, commercial or industrial activities. (See also Paragraph Number [0052] indicating that the geo-fenced area can be associated with zoning information). Paragraph Number [0031] teaches the processor 310 may be configured to first define one or more geographic areas within which a package may be picked up or delivered, and then define a geofence surrounding each geographic area. (the pickup location is the source geozone and the delivery location is the destination geozone - this section teaches the dividing up of locations into zones and subzones based upon planning information)).
As per claim 44, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
wherein the mobile assets comprise vehicles (Paragraph Number [0029] teaches the portable data acquisition device 110 may display telematics data for the driver's viewing, which may be helpful in troubleshooting vehicle performance problems and showing delivery route progress and instructions. Paragraph Number [0064] teaches the central system (e.g., the central server 120 and, in one embodiment, the processor 310 or similar means operating on the central server 120) may further be configured to gather information associated with the packages picked up and/or delivered within the geofenced area. This information may include, for example, the cost, size, classification (e.g., "residential" or "commercial"), sender, recipient, and/or the like, associated with individual shipments, the overall number of items shipped within a given period of time, and/or the like. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0067], [0076], [0078], and [0083]) (Alternatively see Davidson II Figs. 11 and 19)).
As per claim 45, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
generating, by the one or more processors, a quadrant graph display based on the operational data (Paragraph Number [0029] teaches the portable data acquisition device 110 may display telematics data for the driver's viewing, which may be helpful in troubleshooting vehicle performance problems and showing delivery route progress and instructions. Paragraph Number [0064] teaches the central system (e.g., the central server 120 and, in one embodiment, the processor 310 or similar means operating on the central server 120) may further be configured to gather information associated with the packages picked up and/or delivered within the geofenced area. This information may include, for example, the cost, size, classification (e.g., "residential" or "commercial"), sender, recipient, and/or the like, associated with individual shipments, the overall number of items shipped within a given period of time, and/or the like. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0067], [0076], [0078], and [0083]) (Alternatively see Davidson II Figs. 11 and 19)).
wherein the quadrant graph display depicts, for each of a plurality of time intervals, a quantity representing how many mobile assets are located in each respective activity stage (Paragraph Number [0029] teaches the portable data acquisition device 110 may display telematics data for the driver's viewing, which may be helpful in troubleshooting vehicle performance problems and showing delivery route progress and instructions. Paragraph Number [0064] teaches the central system (e.g., the central server 120 and, in one embodiment, the processor 310 or similar means operating on the central server 120) may further be configured to gather information associated with the packages picked up and/or delivered within the geofenced area. This information may include, for example, the cost, size, classification (e.g., "residential" or "commercial"), sender, recipient, and/or the like, associated with individual shipments, the overall number of items shipped within a given period of time, and/or the like. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0067], [0076], [0078], and [0083]) (Alternatively see Davidson II Figs. 11 and 19)).
As per claim 47, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 45.
In addition, Davidson teaches:
wherein the quadrant graph display is updated in real time as new operational data is received (Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100. Paragraph Number [0051] teaches using the aforementioned data received and/or calculated in association with a plurality of delivery vehicles operating within the geofenced area over a certain period of time. Paragraph Number [0043] teaches the central system may receive telematics data that has been collected, in real-time, by the telematics device 102 and/or the portable data acquisition device 110, while a driver was operating a delivery vehicle 100 within the corresponding geographic area. The telematics data may include, for example: (1) time data; (2) geographic position data associated with the vehicle 100 and/or the driver (e.g., based on a GPS, or similar, receiver associated with: (A) the vehicle and/or (B) the portable data acquisition device 110 operated by the driver); (3) speed data; (4) distance data (e.g., mileage data); (5) ignition data; (6) data associated with one or more of the doors of the vehicle 100 being opened and/or closed; and/or (7) other data).
As per claim 51, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
detecting, by the one or more processors, a reversal pattern among the mobile assets, wherein a reversal pattern comprises a change in the chronological order of at least two mobile assets as they traverse activity stages (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 52, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 51.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein, in response to detecting the reversal pattern, the system automatically generates and transmits a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to restore the intended order (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 53, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
detecting, by the one or more processors, a syncing pattern among the mobile assets, wherein a syncing pattern comprises two or more mobile assets becoming synchronized in their movement through activity stages, thereby reducing fleet efficiency (Paragraph Number [0083] teaches when there is any slack between stops on a particular route, a driving time estimate is done to determine if there is sufficient time to insert a new stop for the user's address. According to a specific embodiment, this is done without using the absolute real time information from the Route Planner. Instead, the estimates are computed using approximations of driving speed and real-driving distances based on straight-line distances computed from latitude/longitude values. The delivery grid estimator calculates whether a stop is reachable between any two existing stops, or the station and an existing stop, or an existing stop and the station, first by computing a forward driving distance from the previous stop to compute an earliest-arrival time and then by back-computing from the next stop to compute a latest-arrival time. Using these two times and the amount of slack available, it decides whether a specific window can be shown open to the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 54, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 53.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein, in response to detecting the syncing pattern, the system automatically generates and transmits a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to restore a staggered or otherwise efficient operating pattern (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 55, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
detecting, by the one or more processors, a stoppage pattern, wherein a stoppage pattern comprises a mobile asset remaining in an activity stage for longer than a predetermined or dynamically determined threshold (Paragraph Number [0080] teaches the slack time is not sufficient for insertion of the new stop (512), XpBobo determines whether the end of the current route has been reached (516). If not, XpBobo gets the next pair of stops (518), e.g., the first and second stops, and computes the slack time between the pair of stops (510). This continues until the end of the route is reached (516) at which point, XpBobo determines whether there are any additional routes for the customer's zone (520). If so, XpBobo gets the next route (522) and repeats the process described above. Where a route does not yet have any stops assigned to it (506), all of the windows in the grid corresponding to the duration of the route are changed to available (524). If no routes remain (520) the delivery window grid is displayed to the customer (526) and the process ends).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 56, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 55.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
wherein, in response to detecting the stoppage pattern, the system generates a notification or alert to a user or operator, or transmits a corrective update to the mobile asset. (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 57, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones and displaying that information in a time bar graph but does not explicitly teach displaying deviations from a staggered operating pattern and making corrections to scheduling to correct the pattern as described by the following citations from Borders:
tagging detected reversal, syncing, or stoppage patterns for inclusion in performance reviews, efficiency reports, or for use in future pattern detection and correction (Paragraph Number [0083] teaches when there is any slack between stops on a particular route, a driving time estimate is done to determine if there is sufficient time to insert a new stop for the user's address. According to a specific embodiment, this is done without using the absolute real time information from the Route Planner. Instead, the estimates are computed using approximations of driving speed and real-driving distances based on straight-line distances computed from latitude/longitude values. The delivery grid estimator calculates whether a stop is reachable between any two existing stops, or the station and an existing stop, or an existing stop and the station, first by computing a forward driving distance from the previous stop to compute an earliest-arrival time and then by back-computing from the next stop to compute a latest-arrival time. Using these two times and the amount of slack available, it decides whether a specific window can be shown open to the user. Paragraph Number [0131] teaches another instance occurs when a delivery window is preferable to be presented to the customer from the standpoint of efficiency of delivery (1410). This happens, for example, when a close delivery window in the time axis has been already reserved to a customer whose delivery point is close to the user who sees the delivery window grid 1300. In other words, if there is a delivery window in which a customer geographically close to the user is going to receive delivery, the system make the delivery window available to the user, thus efficiently packing geographically close deliveries into time slots close to each other in the time axis. In such a case, the system recommends the user to pick up the preferable delivery window by indicating a green house symbol in the delivery window grid 1300 shown on a web page. In FIG. 13, the green house symbol is represented by a delivery window 1306 with "H.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 1.
Claims 27-30, 39, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0100507 to Davidson et al. (hereafter referred to as Davidson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0047285 to Borders et al. (hereafter referred to as Borders). and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0253528 to Davidson (hereafter referred to as Davidson II).
As per claim 27, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
generating, by the one or more processors, a graphical display that depicts the fleet operating pattern over time. (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455. Paragraph Number [0229] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 monitors the employee Gantt view 800C of the user interface for user input requesting changes to the displayed Gantt chart 1452 and/or map display 810. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the employee Gantt module 1400 is configured to monitor for user requests to change the time mark intervals (e.g., via the interval selector 1462), change the time window displayed by the Gantt chart 1452 (e.g., via the chart scroll bar 1458), change the current time setting (e.g., by dragging the current time indicator 1455, dragging the vehicle position indicator 1465, or inputting a time into the current time display 1460), and change the view of the map display 810 (e.g., by zooming or panning the display). (Additionally, Paragraph Number [0277] teaches a plurality of characteristics that are tracked and displayed for analysis that indicates asset usage. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0146], [0147], and [0230]))).
Both the combination of Davidson and Borders and Davidson II are directed to asset tracking. The combination of Davidson and Borders discloses monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes. Davidson II improves upon the combination of Davidson and Borders by disclosing displaying the information of the tracked assets in a graph that displays locations of assets by time. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include displaying the information of the tracked assets in a graph that displays locations of assets by time, to efficiently see and monitor the assets that are being tracked. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes in the combination of Davidson and Borders to further utilize displaying the information of the tracked assets in a graph that displays locations of assets by time as disclosed in Davidson II, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
As per claim 28, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 27.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
wherein the graphical display comprises a time bar display indicating the location of each mobile asset relative to the defined activity stages. (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455. Paragraph Number [0229] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 monitors the employee Gantt view 800C of the user interface for user input requesting changes to the displayed Gantt chart 1452 and/or map display 810. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the employee Gantt module 1400 is configured to monitor for user requests to change the time mark intervals (e.g., via the interval selector 1462), change the time window displayed by the Gantt chart 1452 (e.g., via the chart scroll bar 1458), change the current time setting (e.g., by dragging the current time indicator 1455, dragging the vehicle position indicator 1465, or inputting a time into the current time display 1460), and change the view of the map display 810 (e.g., by zooming or panning the display). (Additionally, Paragraph Number [0277] teaches a plurality of characteristics that are tracked and displayed for analysis that indicates asset usage. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0146], [0147], and [0230]))).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 27.
As per claim 29, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 27.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
wherein the graphical display comprises a time bar display indicating the status of each mobile asset relative to the defined activity stages (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455. Paragraph Number [0229] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 monitors the employee Gantt view 800C of the user interface for user input requesting changes to the displayed Gantt chart 1452 and/or map display 810. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the employee Gantt module 1400 is configured to monitor for user requests to change the time mark intervals (e.g., via the interval selector 1462), change the time window displayed by the Gantt chart 1452 (e.g., via the chart scroll bar 1458), change the current time setting (e.g., by dragging the current time indicator 1455, dragging the vehicle position indicator 1465, or inputting a time into the current time display 1460), and change the view of the map display 810 (e.g., by zooming or panning the display). (Additionally, Paragraph Number [0277] teaches a plurality of characteristics that are tracked and displayed for analysis that indicates asset usage. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0146], [0147], and [0230]))).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 27.
As per claim 30, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 27.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
wherein the graphical display comprises a Gantt chart showing activity segments for each mobile asset (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455. Paragraph Number [0229] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 monitors the employee Gantt view 800C of the user interface for user input requesting changes to the displayed Gantt chart 1452 and/or map display 810. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the employee Gantt module 1400 is configured to monitor for user requests to change the time mark intervals (e.g., via the interval selector 1462), change the time window displayed by the Gantt chart 1452 (e.g., via the chart scroll bar 1458), change the current time setting (e.g., by dragging the current time indicator 1455, dragging the vehicle position indicator 1465, or inputting a time into the current time display 1460), and change the view of the map display 810 (e.g., by zooming or panning the display). (Additionally, Paragraph Number [0277] teaches a plurality of characteristics that are tracked and displayed for analysis that indicates asset usage. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0146], [0147], and [0230]))).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 27.
As per claim 39, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
defining a fleet pattern that specifies a chronological order and spacing of at least two of the mobile assets (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 27.
As per claim 46, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 45.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach displaying the results of that data gathering via a time bar display as described by the following citations from Davidson II:
wherein the quadrant graph display is presented concurrently with a time bar display for visual comparison of asset distribution and individual asset activity. (Paragraph Number [0228] teaches the employee Gantt module 1400 displays and synchs the current time indicator 1455 and the vehicle position indicator 1465. In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 19, the current time indicator 1455 comprises a vertical bar disposed on the Gantt chart 1452 at one of the time markers 1454. The vehicle position indicator 1465 comprises an image of a truck positioned adjacent a highlighted point along the vehicle path plotted in step 1406. According to various embodiments, the location of the vehicle position indicator 1465 on the map display 810 corresponds to the position of the current time indicator 1455.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 27.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0100507 to Davidson et al. (hereafter referred to as Davidson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0047285 to Borders et al. (hereafter referred to as Borders) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0253528 to Davidson (hereafter referred to as Davidson II) and in even further view of U.S. Patent Number 9922469 to Ashton et al. (hereafter referred to as Ashton).
As per claim 31, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 27.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach a histogram showing activity segments for each mobile asset as described by the following citations from Ashton:
wherein the graphical display comprises a histogram showing activity segments for each mobile asset (Col. 11 line 61 - Col 13 line 29 teaches One exemplary metric may represent the percentage of total distance traveled by each vehicle below a particular speed (e.g., below 40 mph). Such a metric may represent a measure of lower speed travel in which certain types of vehicles (e.g., electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles utilizing their electric motor, etc.) may be considered more efficient. One or more operations may be executed by the vehicle analyzer 214 to attain such a metric; for example, appropriate data may be aggregated from the histogram 516 to determine the percentage distance traveled below a speed (e.g., sum distribution data for ranges 0-10, 10-20, and 20-30 mph). One or more other metrics may also be developed related to distance traveled. For example, the total distance driven for a period of time (e.g., a week, month, six-month period, year, etc.) may be calculated. From some time periods, data from only a single distribution (e.g., represented in histogram 510) may be needed. For example, if a distribution represents distance data collected for a three-month period, the distribution may be used for determining the total distance traveled by the vehicle for a week or a month. For situations in which a considerable amount of information is needed (e.g., total distance traveled for a year, a five-year period, etc.) data from multiple distributions, histograms, etc. may be utilized. Similar to travel distance, other types of distribution data may be used for developing one or more metrics).
Both the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II and Ashton are directed to asset tracking. The combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II discloses monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes. Ashton improves upon the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II by disclosing a histogram showing activity segments for each mobile asset. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include a histogram showing activity segments for each mobile asset, to efficiently see and monitor the assets that are being tracked and to divine the information into analyzable bins. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes in the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Davidson II to further utilize a histogram showing activity segments for each mobile asset as disclosed in Ashton, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0100507 to Davidson et al. (hereafter referred to as Davidson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0047285 to Borders et al. (hereafter referred to as Borders). and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0100777 to Staton et al. (hereafter referred to as Staton).
As per claim 48, the combination of Davidson and Borders teaches each of the limitations of claim 21.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach an animated replay of historical operational data as described by the following citations from Staton:
generating, by the one or more processors, an animated replay of historical operational data, wherein the replay visually depicts the movement and activity stages of the mobile assets over a selected time period (Paragraph Number [0151] and FIG. 10A illustrates a screenshot of an instance of the history data processor 173. The history data processor 173 permits the retrieving and mapping historical data and events associated with selected vehicles and transponders. The graphical user interface displays an interactive map 1010 and the geographical points 1020 where an event occurred. In one embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to click on each geographical point 1020 and see the event information 1030 reported at that geographical point 1020. In another embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to select a group of geographical points 1020 and replay the history of a transponder or of a vehicle along the selected geographical points 1020. In another embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to select all geographical points 1020 and replay the history of a transponder or of a vehicle along the selected geographical points. In one embodiment, the history replay will replay the movement of the vehicle according to the streets traveled, the direction, and the speed. In another embodiment, as the history of the vehicle is replayed, the event information 1030 is displayed for every geographical point 1020 reached. Paragraph Number [0152] teaches the history replay can replay the history according to selected period. In another embodiment, the history replay can replay the history as related to a selected waypoint 920. In another embodiment, the history replay can replay the history as related to a selected zone 950).
Both the combination of Davidson and Borders and Staton are directed to asset tracking. The combination of Davidson and Borders discloses monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes. Staton improves upon the combination of Davidson and Borders by disclosing an animated replay of historical operational data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include an animated replay of historical operational data, to efficiently see and view an analyze historical data visually. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of monitoring assets as the travel through various geozones and storing information relating to their travels for analysis and logistical planning purposes in the combination of Davidson and Borders to further utilize an animated replay of historical operational data as disclosed in Staton, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 49, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Staton teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 48.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach an animated replay of historical operational data as described by the following citations from Staton:
wherein the animated replay is presented as a table or chart interface, and the display is updated synchronously with the progression of the replay (Paragraph Number [0151] and FIG. 10A illustrates a screenshot of an instance of the history data processor 173. The history data processor 173 permits the retrieving and mapping historical data and events associated with selected vehicles and transponders. The graphical user interface displays an interactive map 1010 and the geographical points 1020 where an event occurred. In one embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to click on each geographical point 1020 and see the event information 1030 reported at that geographical point 1020. In another embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to select a group of geographical points 1020 and replay the history of a transponder or of a vehicle along the selected geographical points 1020. In another embodiment, the history data processor 173 allows the user to select all geographical points 1020 and replay the history of a transponder or of a vehicle along the selected geographical points. In one embodiment, the history replay will replay the movement of the vehicle according to the streets traveled, the direction, and the speed. In another embodiment, as the history of the vehicle is replayed, the event information 1030 is displayed for every geographical point 1020 reached. Paragraph Number [0152] teaches the history replay can replay the history according to selected period. In another embodiment, the history replay can replay the history as related to a selected waypoint 920. In another embodiment, the history replay can replay the history as related to a selected zone 950).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 48.
As per claim 50, the combination of Davidson, Borders, and Staton teaches each of the limitations of claims 21 and 48.
Davidson teaches tracking the location of assets through the use of sensors which tracks their locations through geozones but does not explicitly teach an animated replay of historical operational data as described by the following citations from Staton:
wherein the animated replay can be initiated for either real-time or hypothetical operational data. (Paragraph Number [0132] teaches the real time database 630 is also updated with the new event information associated with the incoming message. Thus, the real time database 630 contains the latest information reported on a given transponder 105. The real time database 630 is connected to a web server 158. The web server 158 is directly connected to the internet 160 and allows users of a web tracking application 171 to make location requests, command requests 632 and report requests 633. When a web server 158 receives a location request 631 from the web tracking application 171, the web server 158 queries the history database 642. The history database 642 contains all events in a chronological order. The web server 158 retrieves all transactions related to the web tracking application 171 query and forwards the data to the web tracking application 171 for displaying in a web browser).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references as described in regard to claim 48.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 9/25/2025, pgs. 2-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations or to further implement abstract concepts that further organize human activities (i.e. humans completing tasks). The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations that improve upon the underlying computer technology. Instead, Examiner asserts that the claim language is only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The claims are not directed towards the technology but are instead directed towards the overarching abstract concepts and in this way is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims nor do the claims recite significantly more than the underlying abstract concepts.
Applicant argues that the claim language is not taught by the combination of cited references. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 9-10). Specifically, Applicant argues that the Border’s reference does not teach detecting a deviation from an operating pattern. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The following citations from Borders is applicable:
Paragraph Number [0085] teaches the delivery grid is adjusted for the open hours available for each day of the week. In the case of non-uniform hours, e.g., 9 am to 5 pm on weekends and 7 am to 10 pm on weekdays, the grid is adjusted so that the display is centered correctly and unavailable times are clearly marked as such. Paragraph Number [0076] teaches the van return times are not necessarily constrained by truck arrivals at the station. For example, if a van has enough capacity to stay out longer than the time between truck arrivals at the station, then that van is allowed to stay out servicing stops despite the scheduled arrival of a truck at the station. (this teaches being able to alter the operating patten to return to the desired pattern). (See also Paragraph Number [0045])
As shown in the above citation, operating times and return times are modified (adjusted) based on changes in delivery characteristics. The claim language requires only detecting a deviation from a specific operating pattern among mobile assets based on operational data. Examiner contends that this is precisely what Borders teaches in the above paragraphs. Mobile assets are monitored and based on their operational characteristics, their routes are modified to be longer or shorter (detecting a deviation). Accordingly, Examiner asserts that the Borders reference teaches the limitation “detecting, by the one or more processors, a deviation from a predetermined staggered operating pattern among at least two of the mobile assets based on the operational data.” Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the Borders reference does not teach the limitation “in response to detecting the deviation, automatically generating and transmitting, via a network, a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to adjust its operation so as to reduce the deviation from the staggered operating pattern.” (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The following citations from Borders is applicable:
Paragraph Number [0075] teaches the ZWC also refers to the "open hours" for each area and zone, the number of vans available in each zone, and a parameter called "stagger duration" which reflects the fact that vans will arrive back at the station at staggered intervals relative to a particular truck arrival from the DC to ensure that all of the delivery windows are covered by at least one van. Using all of this information, the ZWC generates the van routes each of which indicates when a particular van is scheduled to leave the station to service stops and when it is expected to return. (teaches the monitoring of and operation of a staggered operating pattern). Paragraph Number [0079] teaches if the slack time is sufficient to accommodate insertion of the new stop without jeopardizing existing commitments to previously scheduled customers (512), the corresponding window in the grid is changed to indicate that the window is available (514)” Paragraph Number [0084] teaches if there is enough time between existing stops to drive to the new unassigned stop, park, deliver a “standard” load, and drive to the second stop without violating existing promises, e.g., the delivery window of the second stop, and if there is sufficient capacity in the van associated with the route, the associated window is presented to the user as available, e.g., the window is colored green
The above emphasized citations form the Borders reference explains that the system uses van positioning in a staggered operating pattern to determine specific routes and when a particular vehicle is to return. In particular, in Paragraph Number [0079], it specifically contemplates the modification by inserting specific stops into an operating pattern so as to maintain the return time windows. As such, Examiner asserts that the Borders reference does teach “in response to detecting the deviation, automatically generating and transmitting, via a network, a corrective update to at least one of the mobile assets to adjust its operation so as to reduce the deviation from the staggered operating pattern.” Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the Davidson and Border’s reference does not teach an on-board data gathering apparatus. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The following citations from Davidson are applicable:
Paragraph Number [0013] teaches the system may include one or more delivery vehicles 100 responsible for the pickup and/or delivery of a plurality of packages within a particular delivery area. According to one embodiment, a telematics device 102 may be included within, or otherwise associated with, each delivery vehicle 100 for the purpose of collecting, time-stamping and/or storing vehicle sensor data from a plurality of sensors (not shown) also included within, or otherwise associated with, the delivery vehicle 100.
As indicated in the above Paragraph, a telematics device can be included in each vehicle. As such, Examiner asserts that the cited references teach on-board hardware similar to that claimed by Applicant. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 53 in that only one vehicle is contemplated by the prior art cited. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 15-16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In making this argument, Applicant is disregarding the teaching of both the Davidson and Borders in that they apply to a fleet of vehicles. While Paragraph Number [0083] may be referring to the processing of a single vehicle, the remainder of the teaching of the Borders reference are clearly directed to a fleet of vehicles. With this in mind, Examiner notes that the teachings of Borders in Paragraph Number [0083] are not to be taken in sole isolation, but in context of the teachings of the reference. As such, Examiner contends that the Borders reference applies to a fleet of vehicles, not just a singular vehicle.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 55 in that they do not teach asset dwell time. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Asset dwell time is construed to mean the time in which an asset (vehicle) spends in a specific location. In the Borders reference Examiner asserts this is specifically contemplated in that the amount of time a vehicle is at a particular stop is calculated and if extra time permits additional tasks are assigned. Examiner asserts that this teaches a stoppage pattern where an assets remains in a particular stage longer that a specified threshold. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 57 in that they do not teach tagging detected patterns. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph Number [0131] teaches specifically tagging or marking a future delivery window. Examiner asserts that this teaches tagging detected syncing patterns for inclusion for use in future pattern detection and correlation as required by the claim language. Since the claim contains multiple alternatives, Examiner is required to find at least one combination that is taught in the art. Examiner asserts that the teachings from Borders in at least Paragraph Numbers [0083] and [0131] teach at least that single alternative indicated above. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 45 in that they do not teach a quadrant graph. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 17-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner contends that Paragraph Number [0029] teaches a device that displays telematics data showing progress and instructions. While this may not explicitly be referred to as a quadrant graph, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the exact type of display is a design decision to best present information. This information is corroborated and supported by the teachings of Davidson II. While not specifically rejected by Davidson II, Examiner is using teachings from that reference to support Examiner’s conclusion that the indicated claim is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 43 in that they do not teach sub-geozones. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph Number [0053] teaches the zoning information received may include, for example, a designation of whether the geographic area as a whole, or sub-areas within the geographic area, are zoned for open space, residential, agricultural, commercial or industrial activities. This section clearly teaches the use of sub-geozones which is what claim 43 recites. That the citation from Davidson teaches more than that recited by the claim language is irrelevant. It is enough that the citation teaches the claim as it is recited. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 39 in that they do not teach multiple vehicle assets. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 20-21). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In making this argument, Applicant is disregarding the teaching of both the Davidson and Borders in that they apply to a fleet of vehicles. While Paragraph Number [0228] may be referring to the processing of a single vehicle, the remainder of the teaching of the Davidson II reference is clearly directed to a fleet of vehicles. With this in mind, Examiner notes that the teachings of Davidson II in Paragraph Number [0228] are not to be taken in sole isolation, but in context of the teachings of the reference. As such, Examiner contends that the Davison II reference applies to a fleet of vehicles, not just a singular vehicle. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach claim 48 in that they do not teach multiple vehicle assets. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 7/28/2026, pgs. 22). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In making this argument, Applicant is disregarding the teaching of both the Davidson and Borders in that they apply to a fleet of vehicles. While the specific citation from Staton may be referring to the processing of a single vehicle, the remainder of the teaching of the Staton reference is clearly directed to a fleet of vehicles. With this in mind, Examiner notes that the cited teachings of Staton are not to be taken in sole isolation, but in context of the teachings of the reference. As such, Examiner contends that the Davison II reference applies to a fleet of vehicles, not just a singular vehicle. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571)270-0166. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 6:00 PM. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MATTHEW H DIVELBISS/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights