DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 7-10, and 12-13 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 13 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 2 and 7-10, and 12 are presented as previously presented claims.
No claims are newly presented.
Claim 11 is newly cancelled.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 27, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user, a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, and from the predetermined point to the second destination” where it might be expected to recite: “calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user, a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, and a load from the predetermined point to the second destination”
While the recited limitations are provided the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite due to the lack of the adjective “load.” For the purposes of the prior art rejection below this term has been interpreted as if it recited: “calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user, a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, and a load from the predetermined point to the second destination.”
No additional claims are dependent on claim 13.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 appears to recite:
calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of:
a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user,
a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, and
from the predetermined point to the second destination
where it might be expected to recite:
calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of:
a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user,
a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, and
a load from the predetermined point to the second destination
For the purposes of the prior art rejection below, the claim has been interpreted as if the words “a load” appears in claim 13 as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerenc et al. (US 20130159028 A1) in view of Baer (US 20180149484 A1) in view of Shimodaira et al. (US 20200272955 A1) (the combination of which is referred to as “combination Lerenc” hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Lerenc teaches an:
alighting point determination method for allocating a vehicle in response to requests from users, the method comprising: (Lerenc: ¶ 026; central device may also receive a possible passenger (P) parameters (step 315). The P parameters may be received from a user device. For example, the passenger may input the P parameters into the ride sharing application via a user device. The P parameters may include values representing start location (pick up point), end location (drop off point)) setting by a processor of the vehicle, a predetermined range based on coordinates on a map information the predetermined range including: (Lerenc: ¶ 028; an overlap with a stop location may encompass any point located within a predetermined distance from that stop location, which may be called a stop area. For example, a stop area may be a 1 kilometer area centered around a stop location. In another embodiment, the stop area may be calculated in terms of driving time from a stop location.) a first request point where a first user desires to alight from the vehicle; and a second request pointwhere a second user desires to alight from the vehicle; (Lerenc: ¶ 026; central device may also receive a possible passenger (P) parameters (step 315). The P parameters may be received from a user device. For example, the passenger may input the P parameters into the ride sharing application via a user device. The P parameters may include values representing start location (pick up point), end location (drop off point)) destinations set by each user) calculating, by the processor, a predetermined point at which to move the vehicle, based on the first request point and the second request point; (Lerenc: ¶ 048; the system may combine the two closely located stop locations into one stop location by moving one of the stop locations to the other respective stop location.) specifying, by the processor the first user based on the first request and the second user based on the second request; calculating, by the processor,(Lerenc: ¶ 030; if P coordinates do take the driver back to a previously departed stop area, the method 300 may disqualify the passenger from the driver's ride) an access cost for the first user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a first destination of the first user, (Lerenc: ¶ 048; the system may combine the two closely located stop locations into one stop location by moving one of the stop locations to the other respective stop location. For example, if P2's walking parameters include a walking threshold distance that is equal to or longer than the walking distance W.sub.D between P1.sub.start and P2.sub.start locations) a time from the predetermined point to the first destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.) . . . a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.) a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.)
Lerenc does not explicitly teach: . . . and a load from the predetermined point to the first destination; calculating, by the processor, an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: . . . and a load from the predetermined point to the second destination comparing the access cost for the first user with the access cost for the second user different from the first user; calculating, by the processor, a common point as the predetermined point at which the first user and the second user alight from the vehicle, and the access cost for the first user and the access cost for the second user are determined to be equivalent; however, Baer does teach:
. . . and a load from the predetermined point to the first destination; calculating, by the processor, an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: (Baer: ¶ 143; determining at least one fair region having meeting locations that satisfy a fairness consideration, if any, based on the selection factors, the first position information, and the second position information, a meeting location within the fair region(s) satisfying the fairness consideration when both the first user and the second user can travel to and/or from the meeting location with an equal amount of cost) (Baer: ¶ 055; the cost characteristics can define cost in terms of physical exertion required to travel to a meeting location, where, for example, it takes more energy to travel up a hill than down the hill. Alternatively, or in addition, the cost characteristic can define cost with respect to amount of fuel consumed in traveling to a meeting location) . . . and a load from the predetermined point to the second destination (Baer: ¶ 143; determining at least one fair region having meeting locations that satisfy a fairness consideration, if any, based on the selection factors, the first position information, and the second position information, a meeting location within the fair region(s) satisfying the fairness consideration when both the first user and the second user can travel to and/or from the meeting location with an equal amount of cost) comparing the access cost for the first user with the access cost for the second user different from the first user; (Baer: ¶ 055; the cost characteristics can define cost in terms of physical exertion required to travel to a meeting location, where, for example, it takes more energy to travel up a hill than down the hill. Alternatively, or in addition, the cost characteristic can define cost with respect to amount of fuel consumed in traveling to a meeting location) calculating, by the processor, a common point as the predetermined point at which the first user and the second user alight from the vehicle, and the access cost for the first user and the access cost for the second user are determined to be equivalent, . . . (Baer: ¶ 057; A cost function selection factor defines a paradigm for defining what constitutes a fair meeting location with respect to cost, in whatever manner cost is defined. For example, with respect to the task of planning a meeting to be attended by a group of three or more people, the cost function can specify that the best meeting location is one in which the most people can reach the meeting location in an equal amount of time.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Baer with the teachings of Lerenc because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “allow[ing] the users to advance toward (or away from) a previously selected meeting location in an efficient manner” (Baer: ¶ 006).
Lerenc does not explicitly teach: . . . wherein the processor operates to: notify each user of the common point; make an inquiry to each user about an acceptance of the common point; and set the common point as a predetermined position when the acceptances are obtained from each user; however, Shimodaira does teach:
. . . wherein the processor operates to: notify each user of the common point; make an inquiry to each user about an acceptance of the common point; and set the common point as a predetermined position when the acceptances are obtained from each user. (Shimodaira: ¶ 008; user A also confirms that the location at which the user B gets off is changed and the travel route after the user gets off is changed. On the other hand, the user B confirms that the deboarding location is changed to the alternative deboarding location G2′ located on the upstream side of the deboarding location G2.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shimodaira with the teachings of Lerenc because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the delay caused by picking up another rider (Shimodaira: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Lerenc further teaches:
wherein each request includes a request point of the user, (Lerenc: ¶ 026; central device may also receive a possible passenger (P) parameters (step 315). The P parameters may be received from a user device. For example, the passenger may input the P parameters into the ride sharing application via a user device. The P parameters may include values representing start location (pick up point), end location (drop off point)) and wherein the processor operates to specify the users based on one or more of the request points.(Lerenc: ¶ 030; if P coordinates do take the driver back to a previously departed stop area, the method 300 may disqualify the passenger from the driver's ride)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Lerenc teaches:
wherein the processor operates to: calculate an access cost for the vehicle from an access difficulty level for the vehicle to reach the common point and calculate as the common point a point to which the access cost for the vehicle is a lower value than a predetermined value; (Lerenc: ¶ 036-037; Potential additional passenger (P2) start and end coordinates may also be extracted (step 420). The method 400 may then check if P2 stop and end coordinates are located within a previously departed stop area along the ride (step 430). In other words, the method 400 may check if addition of P2 would take the driver back to a previously departed stop area in the ride. If the P2 coordinates do not take the driver back to a previously departed stop area, the method 400 may add P2 to the ride (step 440). However, if P coordinates do take the driver back to a previously departed stop area, the method 400 may disqualify P2 from the ride (step 450))
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Lerenc teaches:
wherein the predetermined range is an area that is preliminarily set. (Lerenc: ¶ 028; an overlap with a stop location may encompass any point located within a predetermined distance from that stop location, which may be called a stop area. For example, a stop area may be a 1 kilometer area centered around a stop location. In another embodiment, the stop area may be calculated in terms of driving time from a stop location.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Lerenc further teaches:
wherein the request from the first user includes a request point of the first user, and wherein the processor operates to determine the predetermined range so as to include the request point (Lerenc: ¶ 028; an overlap with a stop location may encompass any point located within a predetermined distance from that stop location, which may be called a stop area. For example, a stop area may be a 1 kilometer area centered around a stop location. In another embodiment, the stop area may be calculated in terms of driving time from a stop location.)
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Shimodaira further teaches:
wherein the vehicle has an autonomous travel function. (Shimodaira: ¶ 135; shared vehicle Vn may be, for example, a vehicle with an automated or autonomous driving function capable of traveling in an automated or autonomous manner without a driver)
Regarding claim 13, Lerenc teaches an:
alighting point determination apparatus for allocating a vehicle in response to requests from users, the alighting point determination apparatus(Lerenc: ¶ 026; central device may also receive a possible passenger (P) parameters (step 315). The P parameters may be received from a user device. For example, the passenger may input the P parameters into the ride sharing application via a user device. The P parameters may include values representing start location (pick up point), end location (drop off point)) comprising a processor, (Lerenc: ¶ 014; processor-implemented method) configured to: set a predetermined range based on coordinates on a map information, the predetermined range including: (Lerenc: ¶ 028; an overlap with a stop location may encompass any point located within a predetermined distance from that stop location, which may be called a stop area. For example, a stop area may be a 1 kilometer area centered around a stop location. In another embodiment, the stop area may be calculated in terms of driving time from a stop location.) a first request pointwhere a first user desires to alight from the vehicle and a second request point where a second user desires to alight from the vehicle; (Lerenc: ¶ 026; central device may also receive a possible passenger (P) parameters (step 315). The P parameters may be received from a user device. For example, the passenger may input the P parameters into the ride sharing application via a user device. The P parameters may include values representing start location (pick up point), end location (drop off point)) calculate a predetermined point at which to move the vehicle, based on the first request point and the second request point; (Lerenc: ¶ 048; the system may combine the two closely located stop locations into one stop location by moving one of the stop locations to the other respective stop location.) specify the first user based on the first request and the second user based on the second request; (Lerenc: ¶ 030; if P coordinates do take the driver back to a previously departed stop area, the method 300 may disqualify the passenger from the driver's ride) calculate an access cost for the first user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a first destination of the first user, (Lerenc: ¶ 048; the system may combine the two closely located stop locations into one stop location by moving one of the stop locations to the other respective stop location. For example, if P2's walking parameters include a walking threshold distance that is equal to or longer than the walking distance W.sub.D between P1.sub.start and P2.sub.start locations) a time from the predetermined point to the first destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.) . . . calculate an access cost for the second user based on any one or more of: a distance from the predetermined point to a second destination of the second user, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other)
a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.) . . . a time from the predetermined point to the second destination, (Lerenc: Clm. 21; extracting stop coordinates of a possible ride; extracting walking parameters of at least one passenger on the possible ride, wherein the walking parameters include a walking threshold; determining if at least two stop coordinates are within the walking threshold of each other) (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.)
Lerenc does not explicitly teach: . . . and a load from the predetermined point to the first destination; . . . and afrom the predetermined point to the second destination compare the access cost for the first user with the access cost for the second user different from the first user; calculate a common point as the predetermined point at which the first user and the second user alight from the vehicledetermined to be equivalent; however, Baer does teach:
. . . and a load from the predetermined point to the first destination; (Baer: ¶ 143; determining at least one fair region having meeting locations that satisfy a fairness consideration, if any, based on the selection factors, the first position information, and the second position information, a meeting location within the fair region(s) satisfying the fairness consideration when both the first user and the second user can travel to and/or from the meeting location with an equal amount of cost) (Baer: ¶ 055; the cost characteristics can define cost in terms of physical exertion required to travel to a meeting location, where, for example, it takes more energy to travel up a hill than down the hill. Alternatively, or in addition, the cost characteristic can define cost with respect to amount of fuel consumed in traveling to a meeting location) . . . and afrom the predetermined point to the second destination (Baer: ¶ 143; determining at least one fair region having meeting locations that satisfy a fairness consideration, if any, based on the selection factors, the first position information, and the second position information, a meeting location within the fair region(s) satisfying the fairness consideration when both the first user and the second user can travel to and/or from the meeting location with an equal amount of cost) compare the access cost for the first user with the access cost for the second user different from the first user; (Baer: ¶ 055; the cost characteristics can define cost in terms of physical exertion required to travel to a meeting location, where, for example, it takes more energy to travel up a hill than down the hill. Alternatively, or in addition, the cost characteristic can define cost with respect to amount of fuel consumed in traveling to a meeting location)calculate a common point as the predetermined point at which the first user and the second user alight from the vehicledetermined to be equivalent; (Baer: ¶ 057; A cost function selection factor defines a paradigm for defining what constitutes a fair meeting location with respect to cost, in whatever manner cost is defined. For example, with respect to the task of planning a meeting to be attended by a group of three or more people, the cost function can specify that the best meeting location is one in which the most people can reach the meeting location in an equal amount of time.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Baer with the teachings of Lerenc because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “allow[ing] the users to advance toward (or away from) a previously selected meeting location in an efficient manner” (Baer: ¶ 006).
Lerenc does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor operates to: notify each user of the common point; make an inquiry to each user about an acceptance of the common point; and set the common point as a predetermined position when the acceptances are obtained from each user; however, Shimodaira does teach:
wherein the processor operates to: notify each user of the common point; make an inquiry to each user about an acceptance of the common point; and set the common point as a predetermined position when the acceptances are obtained from each user. (Shimodaira: ¶ 008; user A also confirms that the location at which the user B gets off is changed and the travel route after the user gets off is changed. On the other hand, the user B confirms that the deboarding location is changed to the alternative deboarding location G2′ located on the upstream side of the deboarding location G2.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shimodaira with the teachings of Lerenc because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the delay caused by picking up another rider (Shimodaira: ¶ 005).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Lerenc as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Awano (US 20190287075 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Lerenc teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Lerenc does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor operates to set the predetermined range on a basis of an attribute of the user who made the request; however, Awano does teach:
wherein the processor operates to set the predetermined range on a basis of an attribute of the user who made the request. (Awano: ¶ 060; When the transportation is by foot, the travel cost can be calculated by (wage per unit time)×(distance)/(walking speed). For a user whose walking speed is relatively low, such as an elderly person, the travel cost required when the transportation is by foot is relatively high. Accordingly, a meeting place may be derived such that the distance for which an elderly person, for example, travels by foot becomes relatively short.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lerenc with the teachings of Awano because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Lerenc and Awano’s base methods are similar vehicle route meeting point methods; however, Awano’s method has been improved by considering the difficulty of the person reaching the common point. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Awano’s known improvement to Lerenc using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would predictably improve the accuracy of common point selection (Awano ¶¶ 004-006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, and 7-10, and 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner correctly recognizes that Shoham fails to disclose or suggest calculating, by the processor, access cost for the first user, an access cost for the second user, and a common point at which the access cost for the first use and the access cost for the second user are equivalent. . . .Stiglic fails to supply what Shoham lacks with respect to at least the above combination of limitations (i)-(iv). . . . Notably, Stiglic does not consider the cost of reaching each user's destination after using the system. This is contrary to above limitations (i)-(iii). Stiglic if further silent regarding limitation (iv) and therefore, cannot remedy the defects of Shoham to disclose or otherwise suggest, at least, limitations (i)-(iv). Baer fails to supply what Shoham and Stiglic lack with respect to at least the above combination of limitations (i)-(iv). Baer is directed to computer-implemented technique for assisting at least two users in finding and traveling to (and/or from) a meeting location. The meeting location within the fair region(s) satisfies the fairness consideration when both the first user and the second user can travel to (and/or from) the meeting location with an equal amount of cost (e.g., travel time, financial cost, etc.). (Applicant’s Arguments filed August 27, 2025, pg. 10).
Newly applied art Lerenc et al. (US 20130159028 A1) teaches a system that calculates a cost of a shared-transport user reaching their final destination (Lerenc: ¶ 048; if P2's walking parameters include a walking threshold distance that is equal to or longer than the walking distance W.sub.D between P1.sub.start and P2.sub.start locations as a part of a process to determine if two independent bus stops can be fairly combined. (Lerenc: ¶ 048; the system may combine the two closely located stop locations into one stop location by moving one of the stop locations to the other respective stop location.) (Lerenc: Fig. 7(b); [showing combining by considering the distance to final destination])
PNG
media_image1.png
290
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lerenc further teaches considering time it takes a person to walk the distance. (Lerenc: Clm. 24; wherein the walking threshold is user defined walking time.) Lerenc also teaches considering a rider’s “gender, age, occupation” (Id. ¶ 024)when calculating a ride, although Lerenc does not explicitly teach how to use that attribute and therefore previously applied art Awano (US 20190287075 A1) has been applied to dependent claim 10 with respect to a rider attribute.
Further regarding the independent claims 1 and 13, Baer (US 20180149484 A1) is applied to teach the concept of calculating a vertical walking load in lieu of a distance or time(Baer: ¶ 143; determining at least one fair region . . . where, for example, it takes more energy to travel up a hill than down the hill.) consistent with Applicant’s specification at ¶ 055. Finally, newly applied art Shimodaira et al. (US 20200272955 A1) is applied in response to Applicant’s argument that Awano’s:
notification does not inform the user about the common point. This is contrary to above limitation (iii). It logically follows that Awano necessarily could not teach limitation (iv) as a result. Awano is similarly silent regarding limitations (i) and (ii). Thus, Awano cannot remedy the defects of Shoham, Stiglic, and Baer with respect to the combination of the above limitations (i)-(iv) of amended independent claims 1 and 13. (Applicant’s Arguments filed August 27, 2025, pg. 12).
Shimodaira teaches updating all users of a change in their respective drop-off points (Shimodaira: ¶ 008; user A also confirms that the location at which the user B gets off is changed and the travel route after the user gets off is changed. On the other hand, the user B confirms that the deboarding location is changed to the alternative deboarding location G2′ located on the upstream side of the deboarding location G2.)
Consequently, Applicant's arguments with respect to obviousness of claims 1-2, and 7-10, and 12-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Saiki (US 20040254721 A1) which discloses a navigation system, which can determine a place suitable for meeting as a meeting place so that the mobile units can meet each other at the right meeting place free from any place-caused inconvenience.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663