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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of Patent No. US 12377881 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims are directed to handing off a load when an electric vehicle (EV) is running out of power, receiving a message from the second EV that the second EV has less than a threshold amount of charge remaining and a destination for delivering the load, determining a meeting location for handing off the load, receiving a message from the second EV accepting the meeting location, and causing the first EV to travel to the meeting location to obtain the load from the second EV.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, these claims recite “a load” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a load”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a load” to mean any load.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, these claims recite “a message” twice. It is unclear if the second message in claims 1, 9, and 17 refers to the first message in claims 1, 9, and 17 or are new separate unclaimed recitation of a message, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitations of “a message” in claims 1, 9, and 17 to mean any message.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, these claims depend from one of claims 1, 9, and 17 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as one of claims 1, 9, and 17 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of one of claims 1, 9, and 17 noted above.
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.
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the independent claims recite a practical application of causing the first EV to travel to the meeting location.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe (US 20190043001 A1) in view of Hayama (US 20210302184 A1), Sugiyama (JP 2012121700 A), and Liang (US 20180241234 A1).
Claim 1
Woulfe teaches:
by one or more processors in a first EV having one or more autonomous operation features (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “receiving vehicle 106 may further include an autopilot module 140 to enable the receiving vehicle 106 to be at least partially self-driving”
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “The receiving vehicle 106 may include a navigation module 136”
causing the first EV to travel to the meeting location; and obtaining the load from the second EV (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “a self-driving delivery vehicle 108 delivers a product to a receiving vehicle 106 within a rendezvous area 114”
Woulfe does not teach:
A method for handing off a load when an EV is running out of power, receiving a message from a second EV that the second EV is running out of power and a destination for delivering the load.
However, Hayama teaches:
A computer-implemented method for handing off a load when an electric vehicle (EV) delivering the load is running out of power, the method comprising (Hayama - Paragraphs 0063, 0116) “transfer of a delivery object… when the amount of energy remaining in the first mobile unit becomes less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value”
Receiving, by the first EV, a message from a second EV that the second EV has less than a threshold amount of charge remaining (Hayama - Paragraphs 0063, 0109, 0116) “delivery plan generating method may be triggered and executed when the amount of energy remaining in the first mobile unit becomes less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value”
and a destination for delivering a load in the second EV (Hayama - Paragraph 0048-0051, 0077-0082, Figs. 1 and 7) “communication means and acquiring the end point from an external system via communication”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with a method for handing off a load when an EV is running out of power, receiving a message from a second EV that the second EV is running out of power and a destination for delivering the load of Hayama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Hayama both describe handing off packages between delivery vehicles. One would have been motivated to combine as this reduces the possibility of a delivery vehicle running out of power (Hayama – Paragraph 0011).
Woulfe does not teach:
Determining a meeting location closest to a current location of the first EV.
However, Sugiyama teaches:
Determining, by the first EV, a meeting location for handing off the load in the second EV by identifying a waypoint along a route for the second EV which is closest to a current location of the first EV (Sugiyama - Pages 20 Paragraph 9-Page 21 Paragraph 1) “identifies the rendezvous point closest to the current location of the vehicle A”; It is further obvious that the first EV can determine the meeting location because it has all the necessary computer components and communicates with a server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with determining a meeting location closest to a current location of the first EV of Sugiyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Sugiyama both describe determining meeting locations for two delivery vehicles. One would have been motivated to combine as this Woulfe with Sugiyama as this achieves greater delivery efficiency through less movement (Page 20 Paragraph 9 – Page 21 Paragraph 1).
Woulfe does not teach:
receiving a message from the second EV accepting the meeting location in response to the second EV determining it will reach the meeting location without running out of power.
However, Liang teaches:
Receiving, by the first EV, a message from the second EV accepting the meeting location in response to the second EV determining that the second EV will reach the meeting location without running out of power (Liang - Paragraphs 0080-0083) “An acknowledgement may also be sent to the central charge controller 902 which in turn may notify the other vehicle that the driver of vehicle 900 has agreed to transfer battery power at the meeting point”; It is further obvious that the vehicles can also transfer delivery packages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with receiving a message from the second EV accepting the meeting location in response to the second EV determining it will reach the meeting location without running out of power of Liang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Liang both describe having two vehicles meet at a location. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents vehicles from running out of charge (Liang – Paragraph 0006).
Claim 5
Woulfe teaches:
causing the first EV to travel to the meeting location includes (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “the rendezvous area 114 that the receiving vehicle 106 reaches at time T.sub.4”
obtaining, by the first EV, a route from the current location of the first EV to the meeting location (Woulfe - Paragraph 0034, 0057) “along the first route is a second-location P.sub.2, RV that the receiving vehicle 106 reaches at time T.sub.3, and the rendezvous area 114 that the receiving vehicle 106 reaches at time T.sub.4”
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “The receiving vehicle 106 may include a navigation module 136”
and sending control signals to cause the first EV to travel along the route to the meeting location (Woulfe - Paragraph 0034, 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “the receiving vehicle 106 may further include an autopilot module 140 to enable the receiving vehicle 106 to be at least partially self-driving”
Claim 6
Woulfe teaches:
in response to obtaining the load from the second EV, causing, the first EV to travel to the destination for delivering the load (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “After the product 152 is successfully transferred from the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 to the receiving vehicle 106, the receiving vehicle 106 may exit the rendezvous area 114 and continue along the first route towards the destination-location 112”
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “receiving vehicle 106 may further include an autopilot module 140 to enable the receiving vehicle 106 to be at least partially self-driving”
Claim 7
Woulfe teaches:
causing the first EV to travel to the destination includes (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “After the product 152 is successfully transferred from the self-driving delivery vehicle 108 to the receiving vehicle 106, the receiving vehicle 106 may exit the rendezvous area 114 and continue along the first route towards the destination-location 112”
Obtaining, by the first EV, a route from the meeting location to the destination (Woulfe - Paragraph 0034, 0062) “the receiving vehicle 106 may exit the rendezvous area 114 and continue along the first route towards the destination-location 112”
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “The receiving vehicle 106 may include a navigation module 136”
and sending control signals to cause the first EV to travel along the route to the destination (Woulfe - Paragraph 0034, 0042-0044, 0056-0062) “generate the real-time navigation instructions for guiding the receiving vehicle toward the destination-location 112”
Claim 8
Woulfe teaches:
sending control signals to cause a door to the first EV or trunk of the first EV to open for receiving the load (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0011, 0075-0076) “Roll Down Window to Accept Delivery”
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0011, 0042) “the receiving vehicle is being driven autonomously by an autopilot module”
Claim 9
Woulfe teaches:
A computer system configured to (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042, Fig. 1) “the navigation module 136 may be configured with one or more components (e.g., a GPS component, non-limiting examples may include Glonass, Galileo, Compass)… receiving vehicle 106 may further include an autopilot module 140 to enable the receiving vehicle 106 to be at least partially self-driving”
the computer system comprising one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors configured to (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042, Fig. 1) “the navigation module 136 may be configured with one or more components (e.g., a GPS component, non-limiting examples may include Glonass, Galileo, Compass)… receiving vehicle 106 may further include an autopilot module 140 to enable the receiving vehicle 106 to be at least partially self-driving”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 13-16
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 5-8. Please see the rejections above.
Claim 17
Woulfe teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction thereon (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0092-0093, Fig. 1) “The mass storage device 712 may further include one or more of the route generation engine 116, one or both of the autopilot modules 148 and 140, one or both of the navigation modules 144 and 136”
wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Woulfe - Paragraphs 0092-0093, Fig. 1) “The mass storage device 712 is connected to the CPU 702 through a mass storage controller (not shown) connected to the bus 710”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe, Hayama, Sugiyama, and Liang, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Guo (US 20190304044 A1).
Claim 2
Woulfe teaches:
by the one or more processors (Woulfe - Paragraph 0042) “The receiving vehicle 106 may include a navigation module 136”
Woulfe does not teach:
Transmitting, by the first EV, a response message to the second EV indicating that the first EV will pick up the load at the meeting location and deliver the load to the destination.
However, Guo teaches:
Transmitting, by the first EV, a response message to the second EV indicating that the first EV will pick up the load from the meeting location and deliver the load to the destination (Guo - Paragraphs 0050-0057, Figure 1) “the passenger vehicle reservation server may receive a prompt that the vehicle arrives at the delivery place, sent by the goods carrying consignee terminal that reserves the vehicle, and send the prompt to the consignor terminal to prompt a user of the consignor terminal to arrive at the delivery place”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with transmitting, by the first EV, a response message to the second EV indicating that the first EV will pick up the load at the meeting location and deliver the load to the destination of Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Guo both discuss delivery vehicles meeting at a location to transfer packages. One would be motivated to combine as this improves delivery vehicle coordination (Guo - Paragraph 0049).
Claim 3
Woulfe does not teach:
The response message is transmitted in response to the first EV being within a threshold distance of the meeting location.
However, Guo teaches:
the response message is transmitted in response to determining that the first EV is within a threshold distance of the meeting location (Guo - Paragraphs 0057) “the passenger vehicle reservation server may receive a prompt that the vehicle arrives at the delivery place, sent by the goods carrying consignee terminal that reserves the vehicle, and send the prompt to the consignor terminal to prompt a user of the consignor terminal to arrive at the delivery place”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with the response message is transmitted in response to the first EV being within a threshold distance of the meeting location of Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Guo both discuss delivery vehicles meeting at a location to transfer packages. One would be motivated to combine as this improves delivery vehicle coordination (Guo - Paragraph 0049).
Claims 10-11 and 18-19
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejections above.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woulfe, Hayama, Sugiyama, and Liang, as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Shin (US 20240001925 A1).
Claim 4
Woulfe does not teach:
the message that the second EV has less than the threshold amount of charge remaining is received via a vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communication.
However, Shin teaches:
the message that the second EV has less than the threshold amount of charge remaining is received via a vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communication (Shin - Paragraphs 0071-0072) “in response to determining that charging of the battery is required, transmit the provision request information to the server 3 and the other vehicle 2”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Woulfe with the message that the second EV has less than the threshold amount of charge remaining is received via a vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communication of Shin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Woulfe and Shin both describe vehicles meeting at a location. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents delivery vehicles from running out of charge (Woulfe – Paragraph 0069).
Claims 12 and 20
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 4. Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights