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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous Double Patenting rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite similar subject matter both drawn to determining when to release control of an autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, the previous Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections, the previous claim amendments are moot because of the claim amendments. However, Applicants argue that support for “without releasing control” features can be found in the instant specification [0018]: The selected autonomous vehicle can provide the vehicle service, which can include providing the user a limited control over the autonomous vehicle. Additionally, or alternatively, the selected autonomous vehicle can provide one or more other users associated with the vehicle service with a limited control over the autonomous vehicle. When the vehicle service is completed, the autonomous vehicle (or the service provider) can release the user’s or the users’ control over the autonomous vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This recitation of providing limited control and releasing control does not appear to describe the limitation automatically initiating, by the computing system, in response to the instruction from the operations computing system and without releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user associated with the vehicle service, a vehicle navigation action, the vehicle navigation action comprising instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel autonomously to the starting location to return the one or more items to the starting location. Also, the instant specification paragraph [0033] ([0033]: According to an aspect of the present disclosure, if a user does confirm that the vehicle service is complete (e.g., the user does not respond to the notification, or denies the request), then the autonomous vehicle can notify the operations computing system. The operations computing system can obtain sensor data and release signal data from the autonomous vehicle, and determine an appropriate action based at least in part on the sensor data and release signal data. For example, the operations computing system can determine that a vehicle service is complete and instruct/force an autonomous vehicle to release a user's control. As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time. Additionally, or alternatively, if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.) does not appear to provide written description support for the limitation. Further, the specification does not positively recite the step of locking, by the computing system, at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the user associated with the vehicle service (see at least [0038]: user 101 can lock/unlock a cabin door of vehicle 104, adjust a cabin climate control setting of vehicle 104, or change a destination of the vehicle 104; this sentence appears to be the only recitation of the term lock in the instant specification). Accordingly, an updated 35 USC 112(a) rejection is included below.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the previous claim amendments are moot because of the claim amendments. Similar to the discussion above regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, an updated 35 USC 112(b) rejection is included below.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejections, the previous 35 USC 103 rejection is moot in light of the present claim amendments. A new ground of rejection is made in view of Lau and Ferguson.
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).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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.
Claims 24-43 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,795,356. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter both drawn to determining when to release control of an autonomous vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 34, 41 recite the limitations automatically initiating, by the computing system, in response to the instruction from the operations computing system and without releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user associated with the vehicle service, a vehicle navigation action, the vehicle navigation action comprising instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel autonomously to the starting location to return the one or more items to the starting location; and locking, by the computing system, at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the original user associated with the vehicle service. Paragraph [0018] describing providing limited control and releasing control does not appear to sufficiently describe or recite automatically initiating, by the computing system, in response to the instruction from the operations computing system and without releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user associated with the vehicle service, a vehicle navigation action, the vehicle navigation action comprising instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel autonomously to the starting location to return the one or more items to the starting location (see at least paragraph [0033]: According to an aspect of the present disclosure, if a user does confirm that the vehicle service is complete (e.g., the user does not respond to the notification, or denies the request), then the autonomous vehicle can notify the operations computing system. The operations computing system can obtain sensor data and release signal data from the autonomous vehicle, and determine an appropriate action based at least in part on the sensor data and release signal data. For example, the operations computing system can determine that a vehicle service is complete and instruct/force an autonomous vehicle to release a user's control. As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time. Additionally, or alternatively, if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.). Further, the specification does not positively recite the step of locking, by the computing system, at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the user associated with the vehicle service (see at least [0038]: user 101 can lock/unlock a cabin door of vehicle 104, adjust a cabin climate control setting of vehicle 104, or change a destination of the vehicle 104; this sentence appears to be the only recitation of the term lock in the instant specification). Furthermore, the support in the instant specification is unclear regarding that the vehicle service, which appears to be the courier/delivery service ([0033]: if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good), is determined complete and then subsequently not releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user and subsequently locking at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the user.
Claim 27 recites the limitation wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of one or more actions of a user within the autonomous vehicle. However, this claim appears to combine the courier/delivery vehicle with the rideshare service (see at least [0024]: More particularly, a service provider (e.g., owner, manager, entity) can use one or more vehicles (e.g., ground-based vehicles) to provide a vehicle service such as a transportation service (e.g., rideshare service), a courier service, a delivery service, etc., [0033]: As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time. Additionally, or alternatively, if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.) Accordingly, the specification does not appear to explicitly describe the rideshare service simultaneously with the courier service.
Claims 28 and 38 recite the limitation wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of a number of passengers that entered the autonomous vehicle. However, this claim appears to combine the separate courier/delivery vehicle and the rideshare service trip, but the specification appears to indicate the rideshare service separate from the courier/delivery service (see at least [0024]: More particularly, a service provider (e.g., owner, manager, entity) can use one or more vehicles (e.g., ground-based vehicles) to provide a vehicle service such as a transportation service (e.g., rideshare service), a courier service, a delivery service, etc., [0033]: As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time. Additionally, or alternatively, if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.) Accordingly, the specification does not appear to explicitly describe the rideshare service simultaneously with the courier service.
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 24-43 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.
Claims 24, 34, 41 are unclear because without releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user associated with the vehicle service occurs subsequent to determining that the vehicle service is complete, wherein the vehicle service is determined complete based on one or more release signals (see at least claim 24, [0018]: When the vehicle service is completed, the autonomous vehicle (or the service provider) can release the user's or the users' control over the autonomous vehicle, [0031]: Based on the first release signal, the autonomous vehicle can determine that a vehicle service associated with the user is complete and release the user's control; but, based on the second release signal, the autonomous vehicle can determine that the vehicle service is not complete, [0033]: operations computing system can determine that a vehicle service is complete and instruct/force an autonomous vehicle to release a user's control, [0062]: vehicle computing system 102 can determine that the vehicle service is complete, release the user 101's control over the vehicle 104, and cause the vehicle 104 to drive away, [0074]: When the vehicle computing system 102 receives the instruction to release control, the vehicle computing system 102 can determine that the vehicle service is complete, and release control of the vehicle 104 from the user 101 in response to the instruction.). It is unclear that the vehicle service, which appears to be the courier/delivery service ([0033]: if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good), is determined complete and subsequently does not release control of the autonomous vehicle from a user and subsequently locks at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the user.
Claim 27 recites the limitation wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of one or more actions of a user within the autonomous vehicle. However, this claim appears to combine the courier/delivery vehicle with the rideshare service, wherein the vehicle navigating back to the starting location appears to refer to the courier/delivery service and the user within the autonomous vehicle appears to refer to the rideshare service (see at least [0024]: More particularly, a service provider (e.g., owner, manager, entity) can use one or more vehicles (e.g., ground-based vehicles) to provide a vehicle service such as a transportation service (e.g., rideshare service), a courier service, a delivery service, etc., [0033]: As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time…if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.) Accordingly, the specification does not appear to explicitly describe the rideshare service simultaneously with the courier service and there appears to be a possible contradiction.
Claims 28 and 38 recite the limitation wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of a number of passengers that entered the autonomous vehicle. However, this claim appears to combine the separate courier/delivery vehicle and the rideshare service trip, wherein the vehicle navigating back to the starting location appears to refer to the courier/delivery service and the user within the autonomous vehicle appears to refer to the rideshare service (see at least [0024]: More particularly, a service provider (e.g., owner, manager, entity) can use one or more vehicles (e.g., ground-based vehicles) to provide a vehicle service such as a transportation service (e.g., rideshare service), a courier service, a delivery service, etc., [0033]: As another example, if a user forgets an item in the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate to a lost-and-found location to unload the item for pick-up by the user at a later time…if a user forgets to unload an item/good being couriered/delivered by the autonomous vehicle, then the operations computing system can instruct the autonomous vehicle to navigate back to a starting location to return the item/good.) Accordingly, the specification does not appear to explicitly describe the rideshare service simultaneously with the courier service and there appears to be a possible contradiction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 24-26, 29-31, 34, 36-37, 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170364074 (Lau) in view of US 20190035044 (Ferguson).
As per claims 24, 34, 41, Lau discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
transporting, via an autonomous vehicle, one or more items from a starting location to an ending location (see at least Lau [0017]: robots that can autonomously navigate through one or more environments, and are configured to transport items for delivery to one or more locations in the environments, [0052]: receiving a request for an item delivery to a room 502. An item can be loaded into a delivery container of a robot 503. While such an action can be automated in some embodiments, in other embodiments, such an action can be performed by a person, such as a front desk staff member, a hotel item vendor, or other service helper, [0053]: After being loaded with the item, a robot can autonomously navigate toward a room 514);
obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, interior sensor data indicative of an interior environment of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure);
identifying, by the computing system, one or more release signals based, at least in part, on the interior sensor data (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors);
determining, by the computing system, that a vehicle service is complete based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals (see at least Lau [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure);
identifying, by the computing system, the one or more items remain within the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the interior sensor data (see at least Lau [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure); and
in response to identifying the one or more items and subsequent to determining that the vehicle service is complete (see at least Lau [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure):
receiving, by the computing system from an operations computing system remote from the autonomous vehicle, an instruction to navigate back to the starting location to return the one or more items (see at least [0054]: Instead of returning to a normal wait or charge station, in the case of delivery failure, the robot can navigate to a front desk, or other predetermined area 508.);
an instruction to navigate back to the starting location to return the one or more items (see at least Lau [0054]: Instead of returning to a normal wait or charge station, in the case of delivery failure, the robot can navigate to a front desk, or other predetermined area 508…Front desk staff can take various actions in response to a robot having a delivery failure 513, including, as but a few examples, canceling the delivery, or after verification that delivery is still wanted, resending the robot to make another delivery attempt));
automatically initiating, by the computing system, (see at least Lau [0054]: Instead of returning to a normal wait or charge station, in the case of delivery failure, the robot can navigate to a front desk, or other predetermined area 508…Front desk staff can take various actions in response to a robot having a delivery failure 513, including, as but a few examples, canceling the delivery, or after verification that delivery is still wanted, resending the robot to make another delivery attempt); and
locking, by the computing system, at least one lock of the autonomous vehicle to prevent access to all users except the user associated with the vehicle service (see at least Lau [0072]: robot can be programmed to unlock a bin or cargo carrier so that a person can remove its load once the robot detects that the door is open. Individual hotels or institutions can augment this authentication technique with others if needed, such as asking the person receiving the delivery to personally authenticate receipt of the item. Such personal authentication can include using a robot interface (e.g., signing at interface, use of a tablet mediated video interface with a hotel employee, detection of a guest key card with RFID or magnetic strip, use of personal identification number (PIN) generated for a guest at check-in) or other suitable means).
Lau does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the computing system from an operations computing system remote from the autonomous vehicle, an instruction to navigate back to the starting location to return the one or more items;
automatically initiating, by the computing system, in response to the instruction from the operations computing system and without releasing control of the autonomous vehicle from a user associated with the vehicle service, a vehicle navigation action, the vehicle navigation action comprising instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel autonomously to the starting location to return the one or more items to the starting location.
Lau’s embodiment regarding item delivery to a room discloses autonomously navigating back to the starting location to return one or more items without releasing control from the front desk cancelling the delivery (see at least Lau [0053]-[0054]) as discussed above; thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would recognize the benefit to have a management system overseeing the autonomous vehicle and providing instructions.
However, Ferguson teaches receiving, by the computing system from an operations computing system remote from the autonomous vehicle, an instruction to navigate to a location (see at least [0071]: fleet management module 1201 receives an instruction from the service provider 1205 to collect an item at a first location and deliver the item to a second location. Upon receipt of the instruction, the fleet management module 1201 may assign one or more of the vehicles 1204 to perform the instruction by navigating the one or more of the vehicles 1204 the first location);
automatically initiating, by the computing system, in response to the instruction from the operations computing system, a vehicle navigation action, the vehicle navigation action comprising instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel autonomously to the location (see at least [0071]: fleet management module 1201 receives an instruction from the service provider 1205 to collect an item at a first location and deliver the item to a second location. Upon receipt of the instruction, the fleet management module 1201 may assign one or more of the vehicles 1204 to perform the instruction by navigating the one or more of the vehicles 1204 the first location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Lau by incorporating the teachings of Ferguson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a fleet management module configured to coordinate activity and position of the autonomous vehicles in the fleet ([0008]).
As per claim(s) 25, Lau discloses wherein the interior sensor data indicative of the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises at least one of image data or motion capture data indicative of a user interacting with a compartment within the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lau [0053]: If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure).
As per claim(s) 26, 37, Lau discloses generating release signal data based on the interior sensor data, the release signal data indicative of the one or more release signals, wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises one or more interior sensors onboard the autonomous vehicle, the one or more interior sensors comprising at least one of one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more door sensors, or one or more pressure sensors (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
As per claim(s) 29 and 39, Lau discloses wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of an identifier of a pressure sensor or a door sensor of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
As per claim(s) 30, 40, Lau discloses wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of the identifier for the pressure sensor, and wherein determining that the vehicle service is complete based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals comprises: in response to determining that the pressure sensor is deactivated, determining, by the computing system, that the vehicle service is complete (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
As per claim(s) 31, Lau discloses receiving, by the computing system, data representing an ending location associated with the vehicle service (see at least abstract: autonomous vehicle, [0053] After being loaded with the item, a robot can autonomously navigate toward a room 514. In certain embodiments, the robot can navigate through corridors, signal and ride elevator cars in multi-level buildings, and maneuver around or avoid obstacles in an autonomously determined path to the room. The robot, a system, or a person (e.g., front desk) can signal the presence of the robot to a room occupant);
causing, by the computing system, the autonomous vehicle to travel in accordance with a route that leads to the ending location (see at least [0053] After being loaded with the item, a robot can autonomously navigate toward a room 514. In certain embodiments, the robot can navigate through corridors, signal and ride elevator cars in multi-level buildings, and maneuver around or avoid obstacles in an autonomously determined path to the room. The robot, a system, or a person (e.g., front desk) can signal the presence of the robot to a room occupant);
determining, by the computing system, that the autonomous vehicle has reached the ending location based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals (see at least [0053] After being loaded with the item, a robot can autonomously navigate toward a room 514. In certain embodiments, the robot can navigate through corridors, signal and ride elevator cars in multi-level buildings, and maneuver around or avoid obstacles in an autonomously determined path to the room. The robot, a system, or a person (e.g., front desk) can signal the presence of the robot to a room occupant. If, after a set time duration, the room occupant does not open the door to accept delivery, the robot can determine that the delivery has failed 518. Alternatively, the person receiving the item may inspect the item but not take delivery (for example, if the wrong type of item is in the cargo bin), again resulting in a delivery failure).
As per claim(s) 36, Lau discloses wherein the interior sensor data indicative of the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises at least one of image data or motion capture data indicative of a second user interacting with a compartment within the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lau [0024]: a robot can navigate to a second location 108, understood to be different from the first location…second location can be “front desk” of a hotel (or an equivalent location at a different type of site), [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Ferguson, and further in view of US 20170213164 (“Rainbolt”)
As per claim(s) 27, Lau discloses wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of one or more actions of a user within the autonomous vehicle (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
However, Lau does not explicitly disclose that a user is a passenger within the autonomous vehicle. Should it be found that Lau does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of one or more actions of a user within the autonomous vehicle,
Rainbolt discloses wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of one or more actions of a user within the autonomous vehicle (see at least abstract, [0035]-[0036]: Vehicle 10 receives an indication of trip completion in task 310; indication of trip completion may include an express command received through input devices and sensors of vehicle 10 by passenger 30. The indication of trip completion may include an attempt by passenger 30 to exit vehicle 10, such as by pulling an interior door handle of vehicle 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as disclosed by Lau by incorporating the teachings of Rainbolt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the passenger service in an autonomous vehicle.
Claim(s) 28 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Ferguson, and further in view of US 20180075565 (“Myers”).
As per claim(s) 28 and 38, Lau does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of a number passengers that entered the vehicle.
However, Myers teaches wherein the one or more release signals are indicative of a number passengers that entered the autonomous vehicle (see at least abstract, [0036]: When the vehicle arrives at the destination, method 400 determines 424 how many people exit the vehicle at the destination. As mentioned above, the number of people entering the vehicle was determined at 416. If the correct number of people exit 426 the vehicle (i.e., the same number of people that entered the vehicle at the pick-up location), method 400 closes and locks 430 the vehicle doors and waits for the next transport request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Lau by incorporating the teachings of Myers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further fulfill the need in autonomous vehicle to automatically identify passengers and to ensure the correct number of people exit the vehicle at the proper location.
Claim(s) 33 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of Ferguson, and further in view of US 20150314780 (“Stenneth”).
As per claim(s) 33 and 42, Lau discloses wherein determining that a vehicle service is complete based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals comprises: assigning, by the computing system, a weight to each of the one or more release signals (see at least Lau [0028]: a robot using sensors and/or receiving an input indication that item(s) have been loaded…robot sensing the opening and/or closing of a lid/door for a container on the robot, or sensing the presence of item(s) at a storage location on the robot. Such sensing of times can include but is not limited to using optical sensor, weight sensors, or pressure sensors, [0031]: Sensors can include any of those described herein, or equivalents (e.g., door/lid, optical, weight), [0073]: removal of a delivered item can be presumed, and the lid/door can automatically close and relock. In other embodiments, active measures can be utilized to confirm the item(s) have been removed, including but not limited to weight or pressure sensors, RFID tags, imaging, ultrasonic sensors).
Lau does not explicitly disclose wherein determining that a vehicle service is complete based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals comprises: determining, by the computing system, a confidence score based on the one or more release signals and the weight assigned to each of the one or more release signals; and determining, by the computing system, that a vehicle service is complete when the confidence score is greater than a threshold value.
However, Stenneth teaches wherein determining that a vehicle service is complete based, at least in part, on the one or more release signals comprises: assigning, by the computing system, a weight to each of the one or more release signals (see at least abstract, [0066]-[0068]: confidence value for a vehicle may be calculated based on the correctness of one or more of the sensor categories. For example, a correctness multiplier may be multiplied by the vehicles confidence value based on the correctness or quantity of fully functioning sensors in any category);
determining, by the computing system, a confidence score based on the one or more release signals and the weight assigned to each of the one or more release signals (see at least abstract, [0066]-[0068]: confidence value for a vehicle may be calculated based on the correctness of one or more of the sensor categories. For example, a correctness multiplier may be multiplied by the vehicles confidence value based on the correctness or quantity of fully functioning sensors in any category); and
determining, by the computing system, that a vehicle service is complete when the confidence score is greater than a threshold value (see at least abstract, [0003], [0026]: When the vehicle confidence exceeds the confidence threshold, the computing device 122 determines that the conditions are suitable for autonomous driving; when the vehicle confidence is less than the confidence threshold, the computing device 122 determines that the conditions are unsuitable for autonomous driving, [0066]-[0068]: confidence value for a vehicle may be calculated based on the correctness of one or more of the sensor categories. For example, a correctness multiplier may be multiplied by the vehicles confidence value based on the correctness or quantity of fully functioning sensors in any category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Lau by incorporating the teachings of Stenneth with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve transitions between modes with consideration of correctness of sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 35, and 43 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under Double Patenting and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph are overcome, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150006005 (Yu) (see at least [0128]: unmanned vehicle 74 then travels to the recipient's delivery destination in delivery zone X, [0129]: recipient picks-up the package and closes the cargo door. The recipient presses a button on the unmanned vehicle indicating that the package delivery is completed).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights