Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 07/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 07/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Azagirre Lekuona et al. US 20220044570 A1 (“Azagirre Lekuona”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Azagirre Lekuona is commonly owned by the applicant, and therefore not admissible as prior art. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”).
Regarding Claim 1. Allen teaches a method comprising:
identifying a pool of available provider computing devices for servicing a digital transportation request from a requestor computing device (Paragraph 23 describes ride request from a passenger), the pool of available provider devices comprising a first provider device corresponding to a first provider computing vehicle and a computing second provider device corresponding to an enhanced sensor provider vehicle (The mobile systems in FIG. 1A can be associated with different drivers, representing a pool or group [paragraph 24]);
determining a route corresponding to the transportation request for the second provider computing device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 51 covers the route recommended, although it is silent as to which enhanced sensor provider vehicle or device is used. Ultimately, it does not matter which vehicle in Allen is the second provider vehicle. Paragraph 30 states that the mobile devices can possess a variety of sensors. Allen does not specify that the second vehicle has greater or enhanced sensory capabilities over other vehicles. However, this is a matter of design choice; as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply include fewer sensors on a first vehicle that has a human driver and more sensors on an autonomous vehicle that needs more sensory input to make up for the lack of a human pilot. Paragraph 27 even states that the vehicles with mobile systems may be autonomous vehicles, implying that the vehicles without mobile systems might be human-driven. The enhanced sensors can also include, for example, a camera for video recording [paragraph 54], similar to the description in paragraph 0034 of the applicant’s specification);
generating a data collection value for collecting sensory data comprising at least one of photos or videos along the route utilizing the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraphs 25-26 describes collecting information along the route and calculating scores for drivers and/or riders and vehicles, and providing rankings of drivers in particular. Data collected can include video, audio, etc. [paragraph 19]);
selecting, utilizing a device matching algorithm, a provider computing device from the pool of available provider computing devices by applying the data collection value to the second provider computing device (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride. Paragraph 98 also teaches selecting the vehicle based on vehicle profile); and
dispatching the provider computing device to service the transportation request by transmitting navigational instructions to the provider computing device (Paragraph 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
Allen does not teach:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data.
However, Olczak teaches:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data (One or more memories can store senor events and determine the relevance of the sensor event. The relevance may refer to a priority or rank of the sensor event [paragraph 18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data as taught by Olczak so as to allow the system to rank the collected sensory data according to which data was collected more recently and is therefore more relevant.
Regarding Claim 2. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
wherein:
selecting the provider computing device comprises selecting the second provider computing device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride); and
dispatching the provider computing device comprises transmitting the navigational instructions to the second provider computing device such that the enhanced sensor provider vehicle collects sensory data along the route corresponding to the transportation request (paragraph 26 describes collecting information about drivers, riders, vehicles, road conditions, traffic conditions, etc. Paragraph 30 describes how this collected data is gather via sensors of the mobile device at 157 of FIG. 1C, and 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
Regarding Claim 5. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising determining the data collection value based on the at least one of:
a time of day for collecting the sensory data along the route utilizing the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, or a portion of the route that includes a prioritized road classification (Paragraph 72 discloses how the computing platform can train the score models based in part during the daytime and calculate a different safety score at night, so at least the time of day for collecting sensory data is used for determining the data collection value).
Regarding Claim 6. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
wherein selecting the provider computing device utilizing the device matching algorithm comprises:
determining a first transportation value for dispatching the first provider computing device corresponding to the first provider vehicle to service the transportation request;
determining a second transportation value for dispatching the second provider computing device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle to service the transportation request based on the data collection value; and
comparing the first transportation value and the second transportation value to select the provider computing device (The score for a driver’s performance can be based on transporting riders instead of a driver’s performance during personal driving [paragraph 21]. Paragraph 86 adds that if two drivers are available, the driver with the higher-ranking driver can be given the first choice over the lower-ranked driver).
Regarding Claim 7. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
wherein selecting the provider device comprises selecting the first provider computing device based on determining that the data collection value or a transportation value fails to satisfy a threshold value (FIG. 5 illustrates a user interface 500 displaying an example driver ranking based on a safety score for each driver. As illustrated, the user interface 500 may be configured to display a “highest risk” ranking (e.g., based on safety scores) [paragraph 82]).
Regarding Claim 9. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising:
collecting, via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, sensory data corresponding to the route (Paragraph 51, wherein both the recommended route and actual route are collected); and
in response to receiving a second transportation request, determining an additional data collection value based on the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 86 teaches that if two available drivers are within a threshold distance of a rider requesting a ride, a higher-ranking driver may be given first choice for picking up the rider. In this example, the more highly-ranked driver may receive a notification of the ride opportunity before the lower-ranked driver).
Regarding Claim 11. Allen teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 3 features a processor and a memory); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that (Paragraph 105 describes that the memory can be a non-transitory memory), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify a pool of available provider computing devices for servicing a digital transportation request from a requestor computing device (Paragraph 23 describes ride request from a passenger), the pool of available provider computing devices comprising a first provider computing device corresponding to a first provider vehicle and a second provider computing device corresponding to an enhanced sensor provider vehicle (The mobile systems in FIG. 1A can be associated with different drivers, representing a pool or group [paragraph 24]);
determine a route corresponding to the transportation request for the second computing provider device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 51 covers the route recommended, although it is silent as to which enhanced sensor provider vehicle or device is used. Ultimately, it does not matter which vehicle in Allen is the second provider vehicle. Paragraph 30 states that the mobile devices can possess a variety of sensors. Allen does not specify that the second vehicle has greater or enhanced sensory capabilities over other vehicles. However, this is a matter of design choice; as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply include fewer sensors on a first vehicle that has a human driver and more sensors on an autonomous vehicle that needs more sensory input to make up for the lack of a human pilot. Paragraph 27 even states that the vehicles with mobile systems may be autonomous vehicles, implying that the vehicles without mobile systems might be human-driven. The enhanced sensors can also include, for example, a camera for video recording [paragraph 54], similar to the description in paragraph 0034 of the applicant’s specification);
generate a data collection value for collecting sensory data comprising at least one of photos or videos along the route utilizing the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraphs 25-26 describes collecting information along the route and calculating scores for drivers and/or riders and vehicles, and providing rankings of drivers in particular. Data collected can include video, audio, etc. [paragraph 19]);
select, utilizing a device matching algorithm, a provider computing device from the pool of available provider computing devices by applying the data collection value to the second provider computing device (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride. Paragraph 98 also teaches selecting the vehicle based on vehicle profile); and
dispatch the provider computing device to service the transportation request by transmitting navigational instructions to the provider computing device (Paragraph 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
Allen does not teach:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data.
However, Olczak teaches:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data (One or more memories can store senor events and determine the relevance of the sensor event. The relevance may refer to a priority or rank of the sensor event [paragraph 18]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data as taught by Olczak so as to allow the system to rank the collected sensory data according to which data was collected more recently and is therefore more relevant.
Regarding Claim 14. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the system of claim 11.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the data collection value based on the at least one of:
a time of day for collecting the sensory data along the route utilizing the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, or
a portion of the route that includes a prioritized road classification (Paragraph 72 discloses how the computing platform can train the score models based in part during the daytime and calculate a different safety score at night, so at least the time of day for collecting sensory data is used for determining the data collection value).
Regarding Claim 15. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the system of claim 11.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to select the provider computing device utilizing the device matching algorithm by:
determining a first transportation value for dispatching the first provider computing device corresponding to the first provider vehicle to service the transportation request;
determining a second transportation value for dispatching the second provider computing device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle to service the transportation request based on the data collection value; and
comparing the first transportation value and the second transportation value to select the provider computing device (The score for a driver’s performance can be based on transporting riders instead of a driver’s performance during personal driving [paragraph 21]. Paragraph 86 adds that if two drivers are available, the driver with the higher-ranking driver can be given the first choice over the lower-ranked driver).
Regarding Claim 16. Allen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that (paragraph 3 features a processor and a memory. Paragraph 105 describes that the memory can be a non-transitory memory), when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to:
identify a pool of available provider computing devices for servicing a digital transportation request from a requestor computing device (Paragraph 23 describes ride request from a passenger), the pool of available provider computing devices comprising a first provider computing device corresponding to a first provider vehicle and a second provider computing device corresponding to an enhanced sensor provider vehicle (The mobile systems in FIG. 1A can be associated with different drivers, representing a pool or group [paragraph 24]);
determine a route corresponding to the transportation request for the second provider computing device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 51 covers the route recommended, although it is silent as to which enhanced sensor provider vehicle or device is used. Ultimately, it does not matter which vehicle in Allen is the second provider vehicle. Paragraph 30 states that the mobile devices can possess a variety of sensors. Allen does not specify that the second vehicle has greater or enhanced sensory capabilities over other vehicles. However, this is a matter of design choice; as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to simply include fewer sensors on a first vehicle that has a human driver and more sensors on an autonomous vehicle that needs more sensory input to make up for the lack of a human pilot. Paragraph 27 even states that the vehicles with mobile systems may be autonomous vehicles, implying that the vehicles without mobile systems might be human-driven. The enhanced sensors can also include, for example, a camera for video recording [paragraph 54], similar to the description in paragraph 0034 of the applicant’s specification);
generate a data collection value for collecting sensory data comprising at least one of photos or videos along the route utilizing the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraphs 25-26 describes collecting information along the route and calculating scores for drivers and/or riders and vehicles, and providing rankings of drivers in particular. Data collected can include video, audio, etc. [paragraph 19]);
select, utilizing a device matching algorithm, a provider computing device from the pool of available provider computing devices by applying the data collection value to the second provider device (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride. Paragraph 98 also teaches selecting the vehicle based on vehicle profile); and
dispatch the provider computing device to service the transportation request by transmitting navigational instructions to the provider computing device (Paragraph 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
Allen does not teach:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data.
However, Olczak teaches:
the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data ((Paragraph 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with the data collection value comprising a metric reflecting a priority for collecting sensory data as taught by Olczak so as to allow the system to rank the collected sensory data according to which data was collected more recently and is therefore more relevant.
Regarding Claim 17. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to select the provider computing device by selecting the first provider computing device based on determining that the data collection value fails to satisfy a threshold value (FIG. 5 illustrates a user interface 500 displaying an example driver ranking based on a safety score for each driver. As illustrated, the user interface 500 may be configured to display a “highest risk” ranking (e.g., based on safety scores) [paragraph 82]).
Regarding Claim 19. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to:
collect, via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, sensory data corresponding to the route; and
in response to receiving a second transportation request, determine an additional data collection value based on the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 86 teaches that if two available drivers are within a threshold distance of a rider requesting a ride, a higher-ranking driver may be given first choice for picking up the rider. In this example, the more highly-ranked driver may receive a notification of the ride opportunity before the lower-ranked driver).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”) as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Northcutt et al. US 20200393842 A1 (“Northcutt”).
Regarding Claim 3. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 2.
Allen does not teach:
further comprising training an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle.
However, Northcutt teaches:
further comprising training an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (FIG. 3, paragraphs 47-48 describe the collected data being used to train an autonomous vehicle or autonomous mode for the vehicle, shown in FIG. 3 at step 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with further comprising training an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle as taught by Northcutt so as to allow the autonomous vehicles to improve their performance using the sensory data collected. For example, paragraph 47 of Northcutt teaches that the vehicle may be configured to learn multiple routes and to operate autonomously on multiple routes. The vehicle may be configured to select between one or more learned routes automatically when operating in the autonomous based on various inputs to the system.
Regarding Claim 12. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the system of claim 11.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
select the provider device by selecting the second provider device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride);
dispatch the provider device by transmitting the navigational instructions to the second provider device such that the enhanced sensor provider vehicle collects sensory data along the route corresponding to the transportation request (paragraph 26 describes collecting information about drivers, riders, vehicles, road conditions, traffic conditions, etc. Paragraph 30 describes how this collected data is gather via sensors of the mobile device at 157 of FIG. 1C, and 51 describes transmitting trip data, which can include a recommended route between the pickup and drop-off locations).
Allen does not teach:
train an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle.
However, Northcutt teaches:
train an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (FIG. 3, paragraphs 47-48 describe the collected data being used to train an autonomous vehicle or autonomous mode for the vehicle, shown in FIG. 3 at step 314).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with train an autonomous vehicle driving model utilizing the sensory data collected via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle as taught by Northcutt so as to allow the autonomous vehicles to improve their performance using the sensory data collected. For example, paragraph 47 of Northcutt teaches that the vehicle may be configured to learn multiple routes and to operate autonomously on multiple routes. The vehicle may be configured to select between one or more learned routes automatically when operating in the autonomous based on various inputs to the system.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Pan et al. US 20180374032 A1 (“Pan”).
Regarding Claim 4. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen does not teach:
further comprising:
identifying a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence; and
determining the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence.
However, Pan teaches:
further comprising:
identifying a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence (A score matched to a first transport request in paragraph 11, based on probabilities of the selected provider receiving an additional transport request from an additional user while the selected provider fulfills the first transport request along that navigation route); and
determining the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence (In paragraph 35, the second user is within a geographic region as defined by a geofence that can request a transport service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with further comprising: identifying a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence; and determining the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence as taught by Pan so as to allow the system to adjust the scores assigned to vehicle devices based on regions that might have more difficult roads (Pan gives the example of road closures in paragraph 44, and weather and traffic conditions in paragraph 46), and dispatching vehicles accordingly.
Regarding Claim 13. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the system of claim 11.
Allen does not teach:
further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence; and
determine the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence.
However, Pan teaches:
further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence (A score matched to a first transport request in paragraph 11, based on probabilities of the selected provider receiving an additional transport request from an additional user while the selected provider fulfills the first transport request along that navigation route); and
determine the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence (In paragraph 35, the second user is within a geographic region as defined by a geofence that can request a transport service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: identify a portion of the route that falls within a data collection geofence; and determine the data collection value based on the portion of the route that that falls within the data collection geofence as taught by Pan so as to allow the system to adjust the scores assigned to vehicle devices based on regions that might have more difficult roads (Pan gives the example of road closures in paragraph 44, and weather and traffic conditions in paragraph 46), and dispatching vehicles accordingly.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Singer et al. US 20210055118 A1 (“Singer”).
Regarding Claim 8. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
wherein selecting the provider device comprises selecting the second provider device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride. Paragraph 98 also teaches selecting the vehicle based on vehicle profile) and further comprising:
generating a command that improves the data collection value; and
transmitting the command to the second provider device such that the enhanced sensor provider vehicle collects sensory data along the modified route (At step 212, the mobile system 150 may also transmit driving and trips data collected at step 208 to shared mobility service management system 120. The mobile system 150 may transmit the driving and trips data periodically and/or in real-time. Referring to FIG. 2D, at step 213, shared mobility service management system 120 may transmit some or all of the driving data and trips data to profile computing platform 110, which receives the transmitted data. In some embodiments, a shared mobility service company associated with shared mobility service management system 120 may only share portions of the gathered driving and trips data associated with a driver with an insurance company associated with profile computing platform).
Allen does not teach:
wherein the command is a modified route.
However, Singer teaches:
wherein the command is a modified route (Route optimization, shown in FIGS. 2-6. As shown in FIG. 3, the system selects a shortest route in 304, then, responsive to determining that a crossing is present along the shortest route and determining whether the crossing will cause a delay long enough to warrant taking another route, modifying the route to a new route that avoids the crossing [paragraph 49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with wherein the command is a modified route as taught by Singer so as to allow the dispatch system to optimize the routes taken by the vehicle for faster transportation.
Regarding Claim 18. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16.
Allen also teaches:
wherein selecting the provider device comprises selecting the second provider device corresponding to the enhanced sensor provider vehicle (Paragraph 85 describes selecting the driver etc. based on the driver profile and the vehicle. In some embodiments, the score-based rankings may be adjusted based on a profile match similarity (e.g., between a driver and a rider requesting a trip and/or between one or more current riders in a vehicle and a potential new rider for the same vehicle), such that drivers of vehicles associated with profiles that more closely match a new rider's profile may be ranked higher for a potential ride. Paragraph 98 also teaches selecting the vehicle based on vehicle profile) and further comprising:
generating a command that improves the data collection value; and
transmitting the command to the second provider device such that the enhanced sensor provider vehicle collects sensory data along the modified route (At step 212, the mobile system 150 may also transmit driving and trips data collected at step 208 to shared mobility service management system 120. The mobile system 150 may transmit the driving and trips data periodically and/or in real-time. Referring to FIG. 2D, at step 213, shared mobility service management system 120 may transmit some or all of the driving data and trips data to profile computing platform 110, which receives the transmitted data. In some embodiments, a shared mobility service company associated with shared mobility service management system 120 may only share portions of the gathered driving and trips data associated with a driver with an insurance company associated with profile computing platform).
Allen does not teach:
wherein the command is a modified route.
However, Singer teaches:
wherein the command is a modified route (Route optimization, shown in FIGS. 2-6. As shown in FIG. 3, the system selects a shortest route in 304, then, responsive to determining that a crossing is present along the shortest route and determining whether the crossing will cause a delay long enough to warrant taking another route, modifying the route to a new route that avoids the crossing [paragraph 49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with wherein the command is a modified route as taught by Singer, so so as to allow the dispatch system to optimize the routes taken by the vehicle for faster transportation.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen US 20190019122 A1 (“Allen”) in combination with Olczak et al. US 20150262474 A1 (“Olczak”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Beaurepaire et al. US 20200018602 A1 (“Beaurepaire”).
Regarding Claim 10. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the method of claim 1.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising:
collecting, via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, sensory data corresponding to the route (Paragraphs 25-26 describes collecting information along the route).
Allen does not teach:
updating a digital map based on the sensory data.
However, Beaurepaire teaches:
updating a digital map based on the sensory data (Paragraph 69. Probe data can be received from probe vehicles in paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with updating a digital map based on the sensory data as taught by Beaurepaire so as to enchance the database as suggested in paragraph 69 of Beaurepaire to improve the dispatch system’s ability to determine which vehicles are best suited for each transportation request.
Regarding Claim 20. Allen in combination with Olczak teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 16.
Allen also teaches:
further comprising instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing device to:
collect, via the enhanced sensor provider vehicle, sensory data corresponding to the route (Paragraphs 25-26 describes collecting information along the route).
However, Beaurepaire teaches:
update a digital map based on the sensory data.
However, Beaurepaire teaches:
update a digital map based on the sensory data (Paragraph 69. Probe data can be received from probe vehicles in paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Allen with update a digital map based on the sensory data as taught by Beaurepaire so as to enchance the database as suggested in paragraph 69 of Beaurepaire to improve the dispatch system’s ability to determine which vehicles are best suited for each transportation request.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656