DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/16/2026
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 8-9, 14, and 18-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. These rejections and interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150338226; hereinafter "Mason") in view of L'Heureux et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140214465; hereinafter "L'Heureux") further in view of Gupta, Anuj and Chandra, Avishek (U.S. Patent No. US 11619512 B1; hereinafter "Gupta").
As per claim 1, Mason teaches:
A method comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract)
With respect to the following limitation:
receiving a delivery request from a user device of a service requester, the delivery request specifying a delivery location at which the service requester is to receive a delivery;
Mason teaches that a user may have scheduled a delivery of fresh goods to a site. (Mason: paragraph [0055, 132])
To be thorough, and to the extent that Mason does not explicitly teach the receipt of an order from the client at a client device which indicates the delivery destination, L'Heureux teaches this element. L'Heureux teaches the receipt of an order from a user at a client device which indicates a delivery destination. (L'Heureux: paragraph [0013]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Mason or L'Heureux. Receiving the order from a user at a client device which indicates the destination does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Mason. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of L'Heureux with the teachings of Mason since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Maxon in view of L’Heureux further teaches:
in response to receiving the delivery request, causing presentation of a user interface on the user device of the service requester that displays last segment data for the delivery location and an option to edit the last segment data;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
in response to receiving a selection of the option, configuring the user interface to receive user generated content that edits at least a portion of the last segment data;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
receiving, via the user interface, the user generated content;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
revising the last segment data based on the user generated content;
Mason teaches that the route may then be updated, and a driver may be directed to travel along the newly designated access path to the newly designated location within the site. (Mason: paragraphs [0034, 93-94, 109, 132-136, 153])
Mason in view of L’Heureux does not appear to explicitly teach:
monitoring a location of a device of a courier during a delivery based on GPS coordinates received from one or more sensors of the device of the courier in substantially real-time;
Gupta, however, teaches that a courier's location may be tracked, wherein the location may be used to determine that a courier has parked and begun walking, wherein the display may switch to a walking mode where walking directions to an entrance may be displayed to the user, wherein the navigation instructions may be derived from previous deliveries at the location. (Gupta: col. 2 lines 58-67, col. 13 lines 12-39, col. 19 lines 38-67, col. 20 lines 1-44, Fig. 1, 3A-3C, col. 33 lines 5-22) Gupta teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason in view of L'Heureux for the benefit of helping efficiently and easily make deliveries. (Gupta: col. 1 lines 21-33, col. 2 lines 10-13 and 35-37) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta with the teachings of Mason in view of L'Heureux to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta further teaches:
detecting, based in part on the monitored location, that the courier has transitioned from a driving mode to a walking mode;
Gupta, however, teaches that a courier's location may be tracked, wherein the location may be used to determine that a courier has parked and begun walking, wherein the display may switch to a walking mode where walking directions to an entrance may be displayed to the user, wherein the navigation instructions may be derived from previous deliveries at the location. (Gupta: col. 2 lines 58-67, col. 13 lines 12-39, col. 19 lines 38-67, col. 20 lines 1-44, col. 33 lines 5-22, Fig. 1, 3A-3C) The motivation to combine Gupta persists.
in response to detecting the transition, automatically reconfiguring a navigation application executing on the device of the courier from a driving navigation mode to a walking navigation mode that presents walking navigation instructions derived from the revised last segment data including a walking route to an entrance associated with the delivery location
Gupta, however, teaches that a courier's location may be tracked, wherein the location may be used to determine that a courier has parked and begun walking, wherein the display may switch to a walking mode where walking directions to an entrance may be displayed to the user, wherein the navigation instructions may be derived from previous deliveries at the location. (Gupta: col. 2 lines 58-67, col. 13 lines 12-39, col. 19 lines 38-67, col. 20 lines 1-44, col. 33 lines 5-22, Fig. 1, 3A-3C) The motivation to combine Gupta persists.
As per claim 2, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the configuring the user interface to receive the user generated content comprises causing presentation of a pin on a map displayed on the user interface, the pin being associated with a location of the last segment data.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J)
As per claim 3, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the receiving the user generated content comprises: detecting, via the user interface, movement of the pin on the map to revise a corresponding location;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J) Mason further teaches that a user may move around the POIs on the map. (Mason: paragraph [0153])
and determining coordinates corresponding to a final position of the pin on the map.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J) Mason further teaches that a user may move around the POIs on the map, and may do so by updating location coordinates. (Mason: paragraph [0153])
As per claim 6, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the last segment data comprises at least one of: a parking location; an entrance location; or a drop-off location.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user including an entrance locations and drop-off locations as well as parking locations, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136, 145], Figs. 9A-9G)
As per claim 7, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the user generated content includes metadata associated with the delivery location, the metadata comprising at least one of: an entry code for accessing a building; a description of a parking location; or an image of an entrance or drop-off location.
Mason further teaches that the user generated content may comprise a specific loading dock to be used or a specific parking location. (Mason: paragraph [0145])
As per claim 11, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the option to edit comprises a plurality of selectable options for editing the last segment data including one or more of a parking location edit option, an entrance location edit option, or a drop-off location edit option.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user including an entrance locations and drop-off locations as well as parking locations, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136, 145, 152-153], Figs. 9A-9G)
As per claim 12, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
displaying, on the device of the courier, a confirmation prompt allowing the courier to verify an accuracy of the revised last segment data during a delivery.
Mason further teaches that the driver may be presented with an opportunity to override the access path if the driver indicates that the route is not the most efficient route. (Mason: paragraph [0104-105])
As per claim 13, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
storing the revised last segment data in association with the delivery location, wherein the revised last segment data is shared across multiple users associated with the delivery location.
Mason teaches that stored versions of the determined plan may be shared across multiple drivers associated with the location. (Mason: paragraphs [0122-129, 132-136, 152-153])
As per claim 14, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
A system comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract)
one or more processors;
Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
As per claim 20, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
A machine-storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract) Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta and further in view of Vellanki et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230196272; hereinafter "Vellanki").
As per claim 4, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
using the user generated content as feedback to retrain a machine learning (ML) inference model, the ML inference model being used to generate the last segment data.
Vellanki, however, teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) Vellanki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta for the benefit of enabling a navigation application to efficiently route users during trips, reducing computational resources, saving transporter time, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions, and discouraging unlawful stops. (Vellanki: paragraph [0018-20]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vellanki with the teachings of Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 5, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
deriving the last segment data by: accessing aggregated trip data;
Vellanki, however, teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) Vellanki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason for the benefit of enabling a navigation application to efficiently route users during trips, reducing computational resources, saving transporter time, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions, and discouraging unlawful stops. (Vellanki: paragraph [0018-20]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vellanki with the teachings of Mason to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta and further in view of Vellanki further teaches:
and based on the aggregated trip data, inferring the last segment data by clustering location information from the aggregated trip data and identifying a cluster that satisfies a predefined cluster threshold.
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
As per claim 9, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
detecting courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta does not appear to explicitly teach:
and updating the last segment data based on the detected courier behavior.
Vellanki, however, teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) Vellanki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason for the benefit of enabling a navigation application to efficiently route users during trips, reducing computational resources, saving transporter time, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions, and discouraging unlawful stops. (Vellanki: paragraph [0018-20]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vellanki with the teachings of Mason to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 10, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
detecting courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking and therefore teaches the detection as to whether a courier followed the indicated directions. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta does not appear to explicitly teach:
and using the detected courier behavior as feedback to retrain a machine learning inference model, the machine learning inference model being configured to generate future last segment data.
Vellanki, however, teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) Vellanki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason for the benefit of enabling a navigation application to efficiently route users during trips, reducing computational resources, saving transporter time, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions, and discouraging unlawful stops. (Vellanki: paragraph [0018-20]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vellanki with the teachings of Mason to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta further in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, respectively, and claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, respectively, as outlined above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta further in view of Trum (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110087429; hereinafter "Trum").
As per claim 8, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
detecting a conflict between inference data and the user generated content;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
analyzing past courier actions detected from trip data to determine whether couriers generally followed the inference data or the user generated content;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
Mason in view of Vellanki does not appear to explicitly teach:
and based on the analyzing, prioritizing either the inference data or the user generated content.
Trum, however, teaches that routes taken by goods carrying vehicles which deviate from a designated route may be analyzed, wherein if it is determined that the route provides some benefit, future routes may be updated using the deviations rather than the original route. (Trum: paragraph [0046, 100-102], Fig. 9, 11) Trum teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta for the benefit of enabling information to be collected easily and thoroughly in a highly automated and cost-effective manner. (Trum: paragraph [0103]) Trum further teaches the benefit of permitting the collection of an extremely valuable source of expert knowledge for goods-vehicles which can refine navigation route planning and enable inexperienced drivers to benefit from expert knowledge. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Trum with the teachings of Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 17, Mason in view of L’Heureux further in view of Gupta further in view of Trum teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 8, and claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights