Nuro, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2021001870 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16/046,980 07/26/2018 David FERGUSON 1012-US.02 1879
163263 7590 10/29/2021
Nuro, Inc. (WSGR Matters)
Attn. Peggy Su, Patent Team
1300 Terra Bella Ave.
Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94043
EXAMINER
JARRETT, SCOTT L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
p_a_su@yahoo.com
patents@nuro.ai
psu@nuro.ai
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID FERGUSON, JIAJUN ZHU,
PICHAYUT JIRAPINYO, and NAN RANSOHOFF
____________

Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,9801
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 11–13, 15–22, and 31–33. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nuro, Inc. Appeal
Brief filed October 28, 2020, hereafter “Appeal Br.” 1.
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

2

BACKGROUND
The invention relates to positioning autonomous or semi-autonomous
vehicles. Specification, hereafter “Spec.” ¶¶ 3–4. The vehicles may be used
for purposes “including warehouse inventory operations, household
operations, hospital deliveries, sanitation, and military or defense
applications.” Id. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and this claim is reproduced
from pages A1–2 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.) as follows:
1. An autonomous or semi-autonomous platform for positioning a
plurality of autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles and displaying a
plurality of items, the platform comprising:
a) the plurality of autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles,
each vehicle comprising:
(i) at least one compartment configured to contain and
secure two or more of the plurality of items;
(ii) an input device configured to receive an input data
corresponding to a customer;
(iii) a communication device; and
(iv) an autonomous or semi-autonomous propulsion
system;
b) a server processor configured to provide a server application
comprising:
(i) a data storage module containing a plurality of
locations comprising at least one inventory restocking location
and a plurality of dispatch locations, wherein each dispatch
location is associated with a demand for autonomous vehicle
services;
(ii) a status module, the status module configured to
obtain a stock indication of each of the plurality of items and a
current vehicle location from the communication device of one
or more of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the status module
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

3

is further configured to obtain a status of the each of the
plurality of items; and
(iii) a fleet management module directing the
autonomous or semi-autonomous propulsion system of one or
more of the vehicles, via the communication device, to one of
the plurality of dispatch locations or the inventory restocking
location based at least on one or more of a demand, the stock
indication of each of the plurality of items, and the current
vehicle location; and
c) a summoning processor configured to provide a summoning
application comprising a summon module configured to obtain a
summons from the customer, the summons comprising at least a
customer location, wherein the summon module further directs the
autonomous or semi-autonomous propulsion system of one or more of
the vehicles, via the communication device, to the customer location,
wherein the summon module further obtains the stock indication of
each of the plurality of items and displays the stock indication of each
of the plurality of items to the customer.

The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 11–13, 15–21, and 31–33 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mazetti2, Ahmed3, and Atchley4
and claim 22 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mazetti,
Ahmed, Atchley, and Myllmaki5. Final Action, hereafter “Final Act.” 3–19,
mailed June 2, 2020; Answer, hereafter “Ans.” 4–39, mailed November 20,
2020.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues issues in a claim-specific manner. We address the
issues in a similar manner.

2 US 2018/0260778 A1, published September 13, 2018.
3 US 2018/0349872 A1, published December 6, 2018.
4 US Patent 10,130,232 B2, issued November 20, 2018.
5 US Patent 9,256,852 B1, issued February 9, 2016.
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

4

A. Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the asserted
prior art teach some of the limitations of claim 1 and that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
references. We address these issues in turn.
1. “a data storage module containing a plurality of locations
comprising at least one inventory restocking location and a
plurality of dispatch locations, wherein each dispatch location
is associated with a demand for autonomous vehicle services”
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is obvious in view of the combination
of Mazetti, Ahmed, and Atchley. Final Act. 3–4, 9. Appellant argues that
the Examiner fails to identify how the prior art teaches that a dispatch
location is associated with a demand for autonomous vehicle services.
Appeal Br. 9. More specifically, Appellant argues that the cited paragraphs
of Mazetti in the Final Action disclose stocking based on demand, and
utilizing a sales history of a particular autonomous vehicle to determine a
route, but there is no suggestion of the dispatch locations being associated
with a demand for autonomous vehicle services. Id. at 10 (citing Mazetti
¶¶ 38, 39, 62, 63, 67). Appellant also argues that the relied-upon portions of
Ahmed “appear to disclose identifying a nearest autonomous vehicle to a
customer, and assigning an autonomous vehicle to a customer location,” but
do not suggest “dispatch locations in a data storage module which are each
associated with a demand for autonomous vehicle services.” Id. at 9–10
(citing Ahmed ¶¶ 54, 57, 63).
On this issue, we are not persuaded of reversible error by the
Examiner. The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5) a portion of
Mazetti, for instance, which states:
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

5

The method comprises logging a demand for
specific sales items from customers, wherein the
logged demand comprises a sales history of sold
items and geographical location information,
routing the vending vehicle to a geographical
location based on the logged demand and
automatically stocking the vending vehicle with at
least one sales item based on the logged demand.
The advantage with this is that autonomous vending
vehicles may be routed based on sales history to go
to geographical locations where it is determined to
be the most sales opportunities. In other words, the
autonomous vending vehicles will be routed to
where the demand of the items it is carrying is high.
Mazetti ¶ 17 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner relies on
Ahmed’s disclosure that an application will deploy an autonomous vehicle
to provide services, such as groceries, “at the . . . location desired by the
user.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ahmed ¶ 38); Ans. 8. We agree with the
Examiner that these disclosures, at least, teach dispatch locations associated
with a demand for autonomous vehicle services, that is, locations of user’s
orders where the autonomous vehicles are sent to provide services. See
Ans. 4.
2. “a status module, the status module configured to obtain a
stock indication of each of the plurality of items and a current
vehicle location from the communication device of one or more
of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the status module is further
configured to obtain a status of each of the plurality of items”
Appellant asserts that the Examiner appears to admit that Mazetti does
not disclose the portion of the limitation that recites that “[the] status module
is configured to obtain [the] status of each of [the] plurality of items.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that Examiner instead relies on Ahmed
for its disclosure, for instance, of a method to track stock levels for each
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

6

product in a rack, but there is no suggestion of a status module configured to
obtain a current vehicle location, that obtains a stock indication of items. Id.
(citing Ahmed ¶ 51). Appellant contends that “[a] stock level . . . is not
equivalent to a status of each of a plurality of items.” Id.
As an initial matter, we do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner
did not rely on Mazetti for the teaching of this limitation; the Final Action
includes the Examiner’s findings related to Mazetti’s teaching of a system
and method for obtaining status of items. Final Act. 6, 9.
Turning to the term “status,” although Appellant argues that a stock
level is not equivalent to the status of items, Appellant fails to provide its
interpretation of “status,” but notes that “[o]btaining a status of each of a
plurality of items facilitates the application of a product detection algorithm
to detect an absence of one or more items, thereby allowing the inventory on
a vehicle to be tracked.” Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Spec. ¶ 115). We have
reviewed the Specification and it indicates that, for instance, the status
module may apply a product detection algorithm to determine item status,
but the Specification does not limit how status may be determined or
identify what the “status” of items is. See Spec. ¶ 115. The Examiner’s
proposed interpretation is that the term “status” may be interpreted to
include “any information, data, knowledge . . . related to the state, condition,
availability, presence, absence, number, quantity, level . . .related to
products, items, stock, inventory” under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term. Ans. 9. In light of that interpretation, which we
agree with, we also agree with the Examiner that, at least, Mazetti’s
disclosure in paragraph 46, reproduced in part below, teaches a status
module that obtains the status items, as well as a vehicle location. Final
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

7

Act. 9 (citing Mazetti ¶ 46); Ans. 11.
Vending parameters are then registered S110.
Registering vending parameters comprises for
example to store the information in the memory.
The vending parameters comprises at least: type of
the removed at least one item and position data of
the vending vehicle. In other words, the vending
parameters comprise what item or items have been
removed and the position of the autonomous
vending vehicle when they were removed. The
autonomous vending vehicle then sends S300 a
request for a low stock item to a server 30 when the
amount of the at least one item is below a
predetermined threshold value.
Mazetti ¶ 46 (emphasis added).
Consistent with this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that
Mazetti discloses that the control unit of the vending vehicle (Mazetti, Fig.
5, Item 12) tracks the removal of certain items from the vending vehicle, as
well as the location of the vehicle. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that, at least, Mazetti teaches “[the] status module is configured to
obtain [the] status of each of [the] plurality of items.” Appeal Br. 11.
3. “summoning processor configured to provide a summoning
application comprising a summon module configured to obtain
a summons from the customer, the summons comprising at least
a customer location, wherein the summon module further
directs the autonomous or semiautonomous propulsion system
of one or more of the vehicles, via the communication device, to
the customer location, wherein the summon module further
obtains the stock indication of each of the plurality of items and
displays the stock indication of each of the plurality of items to
the customer.”
Appellant argues that the Examiner relies upon Atchley for the
teaching of displaying a stock indication of items to customers, but
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

8

Appellant argues that Atchley’s teaching of alerting a customer that an item
is available for purchase is not equivalent to displaying a stock indication of
each of a plurality of items to a customer. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Atchley,
cols. 35–36). Appellant further contends that the Examiner does not provide
reasoning as to which aspects of Atchley are relied upon for the disclosure of
displaying a stock indication, and no prima facie case of obviousness has
been established. Id. at 13–14.
In the Final Action, the Examiner found that “stock indication” is
“ANY information associated with or related to stock, inventory, items,
goods, etc.” Final Act. 6. As the Examiner notes (id. at 6), Atchley
discloses
The control circuit 1032 of the MTU [mobile
transport unit] 1030 may be configured to receive
an item request from a customer via the user
interface device 1035. The MTU 1030 may forward
the item request to the central computer system
1010 via the wireless transceiver 1031 to determine
whether the item is in-stock based on the inventory
database. . . . The control circuit 1032 may also be
configured to receive an item display location from
the central computer system 1010 via the wireless
transceiver 1031, cause the motorized wheel system
1034 to travel to the display area of the requested
item, and use the sensor device 1033 to detect
whether the item is available in the display space
based on instructions received from the central
computer system 1010. In some embodiments, the
control circuit 1012 may be further configured to
provide an ‘item out of stock’ and/or an item
unavailable response to the customer via the user
interface device 1035 based on instructions received
from the central computer system 1010.
Atchley, 32:59–33:12 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

9

The Examiner also finds that the system and method of Mazetti and
Ahmed “would have benefited from receiving and displaying stock
indication to a customer in view of the disclosure of Atchley.” Final Act.
12. The Examiner further finds that in combination the element would
perform the same function as it did separately, and one or ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were
predictable. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Atchley
determination and notification of the availability of stock is equivalent to
obtaining the stock indication of items and displaying stock indication at
least in light of its disclosures at column 32 line 59 to column 33 line12, and
these teachings are applicable to Mazetti and Ahmed, in combination, to
provide stock indication for items on a vehicle.
4. Motivation to Combine References
Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to combine the references asserted because “Ahmed and Mazetti
are directed towards vehicles which carry stock onboard which is available
for purchase [and] Atchley is directed towards a motorized transport unit
which ‘shops’ in a facility.” Appeal Br. 8, n.1, 14.
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art that Mazetti’s system would have benefited from Ahmed’s teaching
of enabling customers to summon one of a plurality of vehicles in a fleet of
autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicles. Final Act. 11. The Examiner also
finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that Mazetti
and Ahmed “would have benefited from receiving and displaying stock
indication to a customer in view of the disclosure of Atchley.” Id. at 12.
The Examiner further finds that Atchley is from the same field of endeavor
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

10

as Mazetti and Ahmed, that is, autonomous vehicle management. Id. at 11.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is considered analogous prior
art; (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
subjected matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of
the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor”
test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be
considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to
the structure and function of the claimed invention as disclosed in the
application. Id. at 1325–27. It is necessary to apply “common sense” in
“deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be
expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.” Id. at
1326 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]he Supreme
Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art
broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Here, we discern no reversible error with the Examiner’s finding that
Atchley, Mazetti, and Ahmed are all from the same field of endeavor, that is,
autonomous vehicle management. See, e.g., Atchley, 4:58–5:16, 19:3–18
(discussing use of motorized transport units with automated operation to
assist in shopping); Mazetti, code (57) (invention for controlling stocking
and routing of autonomous vending vehicle); Ahmed, code (57) (invention
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

11

for deploying autonomous vehicle to carry consumer merchandise to a
customer).
5. Summary
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error, and we, therefore, sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 1.
B. Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein each dispatch location in the
data storage module is associated with the demand, and is further associated
with at least one of a current customer density, a historic customer density, a
time-based customer density.” Claims App. A-4.
The Examiner finds that Mazetti teaches the elements of claim 15.
Final Act. 15 (citing Mazetti ¶¶ 59, 62, 63, 68, 71). The Examiner further
finds that the claim requires that the data storage module is associated with
demand, as well as at least one of a current customer density or historic
customer density or time-based customer density. Ans. 22.
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not identify which features of
the prior art disclose the claim elements and the Examiner failed to provide a
prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant contends that
although Mazetti discloses logging demand, it does not disclose “storing
each dispatch location of a plurality of locations with a demand and at least
one of a current customer density, a historic customer density, and a time-
based customer density.” Id. at 17. In Reply, Appellant also asserts that the
Examiner provides new rationale for the first time in the rejection of claim
15 in the Answer, without indicating that it is a new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

12

Reply Brief, hereafter “Reply Br.” 2, mailed January 19, 2021. Appellant
also asserts that the Examiner includes some additional citations to Mazetti
in the Answer that were not identified in the Final Action. Id. at 3.
Appellant contends that there is no suggestion in the Examiner’s citations to
Mazetti that a data storage module is associated with a demand and any
aspect of customer density. Id. at 3–4.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings on this
claim. The Examiner relies on a portion of paragraph 62 of Mazetti (Final
Act. 15), which states:
The method comprises logging Sl a demand for
specific sales items from customers, wherein the
logged demand comprises a sales history of sold
items and geographical location information. The
sales history comprises for example type of item,
price of item, location of the sales and time of sales.
The method further discloses routing S3 the vending
vehicle to a geographical location based on the
logged demand and automatically stocking S4 the
vending vehicle with at least one sales item based
on the logged demand. The advantage with this is
that autonomous vending vehicles may be routed
based on sales history to go to geographical
locations where it is determined to be the most sales
opportunities. In other words, the autonomous
vending vehicles will be routed to where the
demand of the items it is carrying is high.

Mazetti ¶ 62 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that claim 15
only requires one of a current customer density or historic customer density
or time-based customer density. See Ans. 22. A fair reading of paragraph
62 of Mazetti is that a dispatch location is associated with historic customer
density, that is, autonomous vending vehicles are routed to areas with high
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

13

logged demand, which are those areas with “historic customer density.” The
Examiner has also provided sufficient evidence that Mazetti teaches that a
dispatch location is associated with a demand. Claim 15 depends from claim
1, and as discussed above for claim limitation 1.b.i., Mazetti teaches “a data
storage module containing . . . a plurality of dispatch locations, wherein each
dispatch location is associated with a demand for autonomous vehicle
services,” and, accordingly, Mazetti also teaches the similar limitation of
claim 15. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–8, 22.
Although Appellant argues that the Examiner has relied upon new
rationale in the Answer, we determine that the basis provided in the Final
Action is sufficient to support a rejection by identification of portions of
Mazetti that disclose the claim elements.6 Additionally, whether there is a
new ground of rejection depends upon whether the basic thrust of a rejection
has remained the same. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA
1976). A decision does not contain a new ground of rejection because it
elaborates or explains a rejection, thoroughly responds to an appellant’s
arguments using different language, or restates the reasoning of the rejection
in a different way—so long as the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same.
Id. (holding that the Board’s reasoning did not constitute a new ground of
rejection where “the basic thrust of the rejection at the examiner and board
level was the same.”). And here we determine that the basic thrust of the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 does not change, and, additionally,
Appellant had a fair opportunity to respond to the rejection. See id. at 1302.

6 We also note that Appellant had the option (per 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b)) of
requesting that prosecution be re-opened, instead of maintaining the Appeal
and filing a Reply Brief, if there were potential new grounds. Here,
Appellant opted to file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

14

Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we therefore sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 15.
C. Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the communication device is
further configured to receive a selection of an item, and wherein the input
device is configured to receive a payment from the customer for the item.”
Claims App. A-4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient rationale
in support of the rejection of the claim. Appeal Br. 18–19. Appellant asserts
that paragraph 14 of Mazetti is insufficient to teach the elements of claim 17
because there is no disclosure of a communication device receiving a
selection of an item or an input device configured to receive payment. Id. at
19. More specifically, Appellant contends that there is no reasonable
suggestion of devices on the vehicle of Mazetti that receives an item
selection and receives a payment. Id. at 20. In Reply, Appellant also argues
that the Examiner provides rationale for the rejection of claim 17 in the
Answer not previously presented, without indicating that it is a new ground
of rejection. Reply Br. 5. Appellant asserts that the Examiner includes
some additional citations to Mazetti not included in the Final Action. Id. at
6. Appellant further contends that paragraph 14 of Mazetti does not indicate
where the customer profile is registered or that charging the customer
account for payment involves an input device to receive customer payment.
Id.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 14 of Mazetti for the disclosure of
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

15

the elements of claim 17 (Final Act. 15; Ans. 25–26), which, in part, states:
According to some aspects, the method comprises
initiating a transaction of items by registering an
entrance of a customer to the vending vehicle and
registering a customer profile, wherein the profile
comprises information regarding at least an account
for payment and detecting exit of a customer from
the vending vehicle and charging the customer
account for payment for removal of the at least one
item. So a customer enters the autonomous vending
vehicle, receives at least one item and upon exit is
charged for the item.
Mazetti ¶ 14 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds that the
autonomous vending vehicle of Mazetti has an input device to receive input
corresponding to a customer and a communication means that communicates
with the server. Final Act. 8 (citing Mazetti, ¶¶ 44, 45, 58, 62, Fig. 5, item
14). Mazetti also states that “a customer registers using her/his credit card
or bank account card and opens a door on the autonomous vending vehicle.”
Ans. 27 (citing Mazetti ¶ 58 (emphasis added)). We find that Mazetti’s
disclosures provide sufficient support that the input device of the vending
vehicle is configured to receive a payment from the customer for an item.
Further, paragraph 39 of Mazetti, for instance, indicates that purchases may
be done by an in-place ordering system, and with the client picking up the
products at the autonomous vending vehicle with charging upon exit. Final
Act. 15; Ans. 26–27. We find that this provides sufficient evidence of
Mazetti’s teaching of a vehicle communication device receiving a selection
of an item.
Although Appellant argues that the Examiner relies upon new
rationale in the Answer, we determine that the basis provided in the Final
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

16

Action is sufficient to support a rejection by the identification of portions of
Mazetti that disclose the claim elements. An Examiner’s Answer does not
contain a new ground of rejection when it provides additional support for the
rejection and the basic thrust of the rejection remains the same. See In re
Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303.
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we, therefore, sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 17.
D. Claim 19
Claim 19 recites “wherein each vehicle further comprises an energy
storage device configured to provide power to the autonomous or semi-
autonomous propulsion system,” and “wherein the status module further
receives a power status associated with the energy storage device and the
fleet management module further directs the autonomous or semi-
autonomous propulsion system of one or more of the vehicles based on the
power status, and wherein when the power status indicates low power, the
fleet management module directs the autonomous or semi-autonomous
propulsion system to the inventory restocking location.” Claims App. A-4.
Appellant asserts that Atchley does not suggest that a docking station
is located at an inventory restocking location or that a fleet management
system directs the autonomous or semi-autonomous propulsion system.
Appeal Br. 21–22.
The Examiner finds that Ahmed discloses directing autonomous/semi-
autonomous vehicles to recharging stations/locations. Final Act 15 (citing
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

17

Ahmed ¶¶ 50, 61, Fig. 147, item 210). We agree with the Examiner that
Ahmed teaches the elements of this claim. For instance, Ahmed discloses
that the restocking depots can be used for restocking and recharging.
Ahmed ¶ 50. Further, Figure 14 of Ahmed depicts a fleet management
system interacting with a retailer restocking/recharging interface, which
receives routing information. Id. ¶¶ 61, 80; Fig. 14.
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we therefore sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 19.
E. Claim 31
Dependent claim 31 recites “wherein the status of the each of the
plurality of items includes an expired status of the each of the plurality of
items.” Claims App. A-6.
Appellant asserts that Atchley discloses “MTU may scan for a visible
or invisible expiration date code/stamp on the requested item” and “if the
item is present, the system may determine that the item is unavailable
because it is past its expiration date.” Appeal Br. 23 (citing Atchley, 35:54–
58). Appellant argues, however, that claim 31 recites that expiration status
should be determined for a plurality of items, and “[d]etermining an
expiration date does not reasonably suggest obtaining a stock indication and
a status of each of a plurality of items.” Id. at 23–24. Appellant also
contends that “Atchley scans for an expiration date on an item that is not
onboard the MTU,” and that does not reasonably suggest that a status

7 The Examiner refers to “Fig. 13,” however, in context, it appears that the
reference should have been to “Fig. 14.” See Final Act. 15.
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

18

module obtains an expired status for each on the items on the vehicle. Id. at
23.
The Examiner relies on the disclosures of Atchley for the teaching of
these claim elements (Final Act. 16; Ans. 31–32), and, more specifically,
Atchley states:
In step 1125 the system determines whether the item
is available in the display space based on
information captured by one or more sensors of the
MTU. Due to shrinkage, damage, lost, and
misplacement, items that are indicated as being in-
stock in the inventory database may not always be
available for purchase on the sales floor. The MTU
instructed in step 1120 may include one or more of
an optical sensor, an image sensor, a radio
frequency identification (RFID) scanner, an optical
code scanner, a temperature sensor, etc. The
information captured by the one or more sensors of
the MTU comprises one or more of an image of the
display space, a three-dimensional scan of the
display space, a barcode scan, an RFID scan, and an
environmental temperature of the display space.
The system may determine whether the item is
available in the display space is based one or more
of a presence of the item, an appearance of the item,
an expiration date of the item, an appearance of the
display area, and a storage environment of the item.
In some embodiments, the system may capture an
image of the display space using an image sensor on
the MTU to determine whether the item is in the
display space. In some embodiments, the system
may scan for RFID tags around the area of the
display space to determine whether a requested item
is in the display space. In some embodiments, the
MTU may scan for a visible or invisible expiration
date code/stamp on the requested item. Even if the
item is present, the system may determine that the
item is unavailable because it is past its expiration
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

19

date.
Atchley, 35:30–65 (emphasis added).
Based at least on these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Atchley teaches determination of the expiry status of items.
See Final Act. 16. Additionally, the Examiner relies on these teachings in
combination with Mazetti and Ahmed, where the combination would teach
expiry status determination for items on a vehicle.
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we therefore sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 31.
F. Claim 33
Dependent claim 33 recites “wherein the status module is further
configured to obtain a status of the each of the plurality of items from the
communication device of the one or more of the plurality of vehicles, the
communication device being arranged to transmit the status of the each of
the plurality of items to the status module.” Claims App. A-6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not state the rationale as to
why Atchley teaches this claim limitation. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant further
asserts that “Ahmed and Atchley do not appear to disclose . . . that a status
module (of a server processor) obtains a status of each of a plurality of items
(contained in a compartment of a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles) from a
communication device of one or more of the plurality of vehicles.” Id. at 26.
The Examiner relies on Ahmed and Atchley for the teaching of the
elements of claim 33. Final Act. 18; Ans. 32–36. Ahmed, for instance,
states that “[o]nce stock levels drop below a defined threshold, the
Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

20

autonomous vehicle 100 will communicate with and talk to its closest
restocking depot” and “that stock levels for each product” are tracked and
the network is informed about “stock levels at all times for the whole fleet.”
Ahmed ¶¶ 50, 51. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because
there is disclosure in Ahmed that the autonomous vehicle communicates the
status of items to a network, which is the equivalent of a status module.
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we, therefore, sustain the § 103 rejection for
claim 33.
G. Claims 2–6, 11–13, 16–22, and 32
Dependent claims 2–6, 11–13, 16–22, and 32 depend directly or
directly from claim 1 and Appellant relies on the arguments for claim 1 for
these claims. Appeal Br. 15. We do not find the arguments directed to
claim 1 to be persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, after considering Appellant’s contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellant does not
identify reversible error, and we, therefore, sustain the § 103 rejection for
claims 2–6, 11–13, 16–22, and 32.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 11–13,
15–22, and 31–33 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Appeal 2021-001870
Application 16/046,980

21

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 11–
13,15–21,
31–33
103 Mazetti, Ahmed,
Atchley
1–6, 11–13,
15–21, 31–
33

22 103 Mazetti, Ahmed,
Atchley, Myllmaki
22
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 11–13,
15–22, 31–
33

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED