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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s response filed on October 13th, 2025. Claims 1, 4-8 and 15-16, 19, and 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 9-14 are non-elected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 13th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s response filed October 13th, 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 13th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20180143027 (hereinafter, “Schlesinger”).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “determine whether the at least one stop change request satisfies a change condition” should recite “determine whether the plurality of change requests satisfies a change condition”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4, 5, 16, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180143027 (hereinafter, “Schlesinger”) in view of US-11422555 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1 Schlesinger discloses a method of controlling a stop of a mobility device for a stop control management system implemented by a computing device (see at least [0002]; “Implementations described and claimed herein address the foregoing by providing methods and systems for dynamic route planning to service demand-based transport.”), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of stop change requests of a route mobility device (see at least [0002]; “In one implementation, a method for providing demand-based transport includes receiving one or more rider transit requests from various computing devices. Each received rider transit request specifies at least one stop request,” since the stops would not be used without the request these requests are stop change requests) from i) a user device through the route mobility device and ii) a reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” while not stated explicitly it would be an obvious variant for the user device to be an in-vehicle tablet which then corresponds to a user device through a route mobility device ), wherein the route mobility device is schedules with multiple stops that are changeable based on the plurality of stop change requests (see at least [0021]; “In one implementation, a default route is initially associated with a particular vehicle and the route planner 106 modifies the default route during initial route planning to generate the customized demand-based route 132. "Initial route planning" refers to, for example, route planning performed responsive to one or more rider transit requests and before a vehicle is initially dispatched to service the customized demand-based route 132.”);
determining whether the plurality of stop change request satisfies a change condition (see at least [0053]; “the dynamic demand-based transport system 300 may prohibit route changes that cause more than 15 minutes in slippage in an originally-estimated pick-up and/or drop-off for a rider that is already being serviced by a route in-progress”) …
…wherein the plurality of stop change request includes both a first stop change request from the user device used by a first user who is on the route mobility device and a second stop change request from the reception device installed in a transfer hub and used by a second user who is scheduled to get on the route mobility device and located in the transfer hub (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” this does not preclude the stop change request by the user device being completed by a user device on a vehicle);
wherein the first stop change request of the first user is received through the route mobility device and the second stop change request is received from the reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests.”); and
transmitting a change stop message to…the second user (see at least [0047]; “In one implementation, the rider-based transport system 200 sends updated notifications to the transit request application on each rider device in the event that the estimated pick-up and/or drop-off times”).
Schlesinger does not disclose determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests, in the plurality of stop change requests, is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop…
…transmitting a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests, in the plurality of stop change requests, is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop (see at least [Col. 27, lines 29-36]; “the destination of the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can be changed with the consent of all the passengers,” the ratio must be equal to 1 in order for the change condition to be satisfied, the number of people included in information corresponds to the number of passengers and the number of people scheduled to get on/off corresponds to the number of passengers which approved the change)…
…transmitting a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device (see at least [Col. 27, lines 57-61]; “If the autonomous vehicle 840 cannot park at a point requested by the passenger, or cannot move to the point requested by the passenger, then the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can output guide information guiding a corresponding reason,” if the vehicle is unable to stopped at the requested location and the stop location must be changed guidance is outputted to the user through the autonomous vehicle, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting a stop change message as a message communicating whether or not the stop has been changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger with change condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring all passengers consent with changes to the route (see at least [col. 27, lines 4-11]).
Regarding claim 4 Schlesinger in view of Kim renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses wherein the number of people is calculated based on a getting-on/off request of the regular stop received from at least one of the user device or the reception device which receives a getting-on/off request in a mobility transfer hub, in which the route mobility device stops, and the at least one stop change request (see at least [Col. 16, lines 5-8]; “the subscriber can select a total number of passengers to get in” on their user device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger with change condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring all passengers consent with changes to the route (see at least [col. 27, lines 4-11]).
Regarding claim 5 Schlesinger in view of Kim renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Kim discloses wherein whether the at least one stop change request is equal to or greater than the predetermined ratio is determined based on the change request (see at least [Col. 27, lines 29-36]; “the destination of the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can be changed with the consent of all the passengers,” the ratio must be equal to 1 in order for the change condition to be satisfied, the number of people included in information corresponds to the number of passengers and the number of people scheduled to get on/off corresponds to the number of passengers which approved the change), an allowance response message of a change stop from a user device without the change request and the number of people scheduled to get on/off (see at least [Col. 27, lines 12-21]; “the server 820 transmits a destination change approval request to the second passenger terminal 810b (S1630). The second passenger terminal 810b outputs a destination change interface in response to the destination change approval request (S1650),” the change approval request is equivalent to Applicant’s allowance response message of a change stop, and [Col. 16, lines 5-8]; “the subscriber can select a total number of passengers to get in” on their user device)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger with change condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring all passengers consent with changes to the route (see at least [col. 27, lines 4-11]).
Regarding claim 16 Kim discloses a server for controlling a stop of a mobility device (see at least [0011]; “The route planning system 112 includes at least a reservation intake engine 120 and a route planner 106. These and other components of the route planning system 112 may exist within a single network or may be distributed across any combination of networks, servers, personal devices, etc.”), the server comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a signal (see at least [0071]; “The computing device 500 includes one or more communication transceivers 530 and an antenna 532 to provide network connectivity (e.g., a mobile phone network, Wi-Fi®, BlueTooth®, etc.)”); and
a processor configured to control the transceiver (see at least [Col0068]; “The example computing device 500 includes one or more processor units 502”), wherein the server is configured to:
receive a plurality of stop change requests of a route mobility device (see at least [0002]; “In one implementation, a method for providing demand-based transport includes receiving one or more rider transit requests from various computing devices. Each received rider transit request specifies at least one stop request,” since the stops would not be used without the request these requests are stop change requests) from i) a user device through the route mobility device and ii) a reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” while not stated explicitly it would be an obvious variant for the user device to be an in-vehicle tablet which then corresponds to a user device through a route mobility device ), wherein the route mobility device is scheduled with multiple stops that are changeable based on the plurality of stop change requests (see at least [0021]; “In one implementation, a default route is initially associated with a particular vehicle and the route planner 106 modifies the default route during initial route planning to generate the customized demand-based route 132. "Initial route planning" refers to, for example, route planning performed responsive to one or more rider transit requests and before a vehicle is initially dispatched to service the customized demand-based route 132.”);
determine whether the at least one stop change request satisfies a change condition (see at least [0053]; “the dynamic demand-based transport system 300 may prohibit route changes that cause more than 15 minutes in slippage in an originally-estimated pick-up and/or drop-off for a rider that is already being serviced by a route in-progress”) …
…wherein the plurality of stop change request includes both a first stop change request from the user device used by a first user who is on the route mobility device and a second stop change request from the reception device installed in a transfer hub and used by a second user who is scheduled to get on the route mobility device and located in the transfer hub (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” this does not preclude the stop change request by the user device being completed by a user device on a vehicle);
wherein the first stop change request of the first user is received through the route mobility device and the second stop change request is received from the reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests.”); and
transmitting a change stop message to…the second user (see at least [0047]; “In one implementation, the rider-based transport system 200 sends updated notifications to the transit request application on each rider device in the event that the estimated pick-up and/or drop-off times”).
Kim does not disclose determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests when the change condition is satisfied wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop…
…transmitting a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests when the change condition is satisfied wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop (see at least [Col. 27, lines 29-36]; “the destination of the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can be changed with the consent of all the passengers,” the ratio must be equal to 1 in order for the change condition to be satisfied, the number of people included in information corresponds to the number of passengers and the number of people scheduled to get on/off corresponds to the number of passengers which approved the change)…
…transmitting a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device (see at least [Col. 27, lines 57-61]; “If the autonomous vehicle 840 cannot park at a point requested by the passenger, or cannot move to the point requested by the passenger, then the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can output guide information guiding a corresponding reason,” if the vehicle is unable to stopped at the requested location and the stop location must be changed guidance is outputted to the user through the autonomous vehicle, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting a stop change message as a message communicating whether or not the stop has been changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger with change condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring all passengers consent with changes to the route (see at least [col. 27, lines 4-11]).
Regarding claim 20 Schlesinger discloses a management system implemented by a computing device to perform a mobility stop control process (see at least [Abstract]; “A system demand-based transport includes a reservation intake engine that receives rider transit requests from various computing devices.”), the management system comprising:
a server configured to operate the management system (see at least [0011]; “The route planning system 112 includes at least a reservation intake engine 120 and a route planner 106. These and other components of the route planning system 112 may exist within a single network or may be distributed across any combination of networks, servers, personal devices, etc.”);
at least one user device registered in the management system (see at least fig. 1; personal computing device 118); and
at least one route mobility device registered in the management system (see at least [0018]; “For example, the reservation input engine 120 may identify one or more vehicles currently near a stop location specified by a received rider transit request or identify one or more vehicles that are scheduled to be near the stop location at a future point in time (e.g., if the rider transit request specifies a future pick-up time)”), wherein the server is configured to:
receiving a plurality of stop change requests of a route mobility device (see at least [0002]; “In one implementation, a method for providing demand-based transport includes receiving one or more rider transit requests from various computing devices. Each received rider transit request specifies at least one stop request,” since the stops would not be used without the request these requests are stop change requests) from i) a user device through the route mobility device and ii) a reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” while not stated explicitly it would be an obvious variant for the user device to be an in-vehicle tablet which then corresponds to a user device through a route mobility device ), wherein the route mobility device is schedules with multiple stops that are changeable based on the plurality of stop change requests (see at least [0021]; “In one implementation, a default route is initially associated with a particular vehicle and the route planner 106 modifies the default route during initial route planning to generate the customized demand-based route 132. "Initial route planning" refers to, for example, route planning performed responsive to one or more rider transit requests and before a vehicle is initially dispatched to service the customized demand-based route 132.”);
determine whether the at least one stop change request satisfies a change condition (see at least [0053]; “the dynamic demand-based transport system 300 may prohibit route changes that cause more than 15 minutes in slippage in an originally-estimated pick-up and/or drop-off for a rider that is already being serviced by a route in-progress”) …
…wherein the plurality of stop change request includes both a first stop change request from the user device used by a first user who is on the route mobility device and a second stop change request from the reception device installed in a transfer hub and used by a second user who is scheduled to get on the route mobility device and located in the transfer hub (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests,” this does not preclude the stop change request by the user device being completed by a user device on a vehicle);
wherein the first stop change request of the first user is received through the route mobility device and the second stop change request is received from the reception device (see at least [0026]; “Each individual transit request of the dynamic demand-based transport system 100 originates at a computing device, such as the personal computing device 118. In different implementations, the computing device 118 may take on a variety of forms such as a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, smart watch, or other computing device, such as a public computing device stationed at a kiosk or predesignated vehicle stop that is available to riders to place transit requests.”); and
transmitting a change stop message to…the second user (see at least [0047]; “In one implementation, the rider-based transport system 200 sends updated notifications to the transit request application on each rider device in the event that the estimated pick-up and/or drop-off times”).
Schlesinger does not disclose determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests when the change condition is satisfied, wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests, in the plurality of stop change requests, is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop…
…transmit a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a change stop of the route mobility device based on the plurality of stop change requests when the change condition is satisfied, wherein the change condition is satisfied when a number of stop change requests, in the plurality of stop change requests, is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio of a number of people scheduled to get on/off the route mobility device at a regular stop (see at least [Col. 27, lines 29-36]; “the destination of the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can be changed with the consent of all the passengers,” the ratio must be equal to 1 in order for the change condition to be satisfied, the number of people included in information corresponds to the number of passengers and the number of people scheduled to get on/off corresponds to the number of passengers which approved the change)…
…transmitting a change stop message to the route mobility device…wherein the change stop message is retransmitted to the first user by the route mobility device (see at least [Col. 27, lines 57-61]; “If the autonomous vehicle 840 cannot park at a point requested by the passenger, or cannot move to the point requested by the passenger, then the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can output guide information guiding a corresponding reason,” if the vehicle is unable to stopped at the requested location and the stop location must be changed guidance is outputted to the user through the autonomous vehicle, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting a stop change message as a message communicating whether or not the stop has been changed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger with change condition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring all passengers consent with changes to the route (see at least [col. 27, lines 4-11]).
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in view of US-20230140268 (hereinafter, “Hochberg”).
Regarding claim 6 Schlesinger in view of Kim renders all of the limitations of claim 1. Schlesinger does not disclose wherein the determining the change stop comprises determining any one of a preset dynamic stop within a predetermined distance to a requested change stop or a dynamic stop adaptively selected for a plurality of requested change stops, based on change stop information in the change request.
Hochberg in the same field of endeavor, teaches a ridesharing management system wherein the determining the change stop comprises determining any one of a preset dynamic stop within a predetermined distance to a requested change stop or a dynamic stop adaptively selected for a plurality of requested change stops, based on change stop information in the change request (see at least [0123]; “In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server adjusts the selection of the pick-up location based on filtering results if potential assignment vehicles or vice versa. The two selection processes can complement each other to reach one or more optimal combinations. In various embodiments, the ridesharing management server assigns a pick-up location that is along a main street that an assigned vehicle can easily locate and/or at a location which that does not require an assign vehicle to take a U-turn. In cases where there are one or more other users in the vehicle, the ridesharing management server 150 can assign a pick-up location close to the vehicle’s next assigned drop-off and/or on a side street that the vehicle has to ride through for riders already in the vehicles,” and [0136]; “In some embodiments, where the first user has not been picked up yet, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at substantially the same location as the first pick-up location, for example, half a block away, or 100 meters away from the first pick-up location. This way, the vehicle may pick up both users at about the same time at substantially the same location, to, for example, improve service efficiency. In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at a substantially the same location as the first drop-off location, wherein the vehicle may drop off the first user, and pick up the second user at about the same time, without substantial extra travelling. In some embodiments, the second drop-off location is set at substantially the same location as the first drop off location, such that the vehicle may drop off multiple users at the same time or substantially the same time),” a dynamic stop is adaptively determined based on the destination and pick-up requests of multiple users using the rideshare).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger as modified by Kim with the dynamic pick-up/drop-off of Hochberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving service efficiency of rideshare vehicles (see at least Hochberg; [0136]).
Regarding claim 8 Schlesinger in view of Kim and Hochberg renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Hochberg in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the change stop is determined to be a dynamic stop within a predetermined distance to a regular stop of the route mobility device among the dynamic stops (see at least [0123]; “In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server adjusts the selection of the pick-up location based on filtering results if potential assignment vehicles or vice versa. The two selection processes can complement each other to reach one or more optimal combinations. In various embodiments, the ridesharing management server assigns a pick-up location that is along a main street that an assigned vehicle can easily locate and/or at a location which that does not require an assign vehicle to take a U-turn. In cases where there are one or more other users in the vehicle, the ridesharing management server 150 can assign a pick-up location close to the vehicle’s next assigned drop-off and/or on a side street that the vehicle has to ride through for riders already in the vehicles,” and [0136]; “In some embodiments, where the first user has not been picked up yet, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at substantially the same location as the first pick-up location, for example, half a block away, or 100 meters away from the first pick-up location. This way, the vehicle may pick up both users at about the same time at substantially the same location, to, for example, improve service efficiency. In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at a substantially the same location as the first drop-off location, wherein the vehicle may drop off the first user, and pick up the second user at about the same time, without substantial extra travelling. In some embodiments, the second drop-off location is set at substantially the same location as the first drop off location, such that the vehicle may drop off multiple users at the same time or substantially the same time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger as modified by Kim with the dynamic pick-up/drop-off of Hochberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving service efficiency of rideshare vehicles (see at least Hochberg; [0136]).
Regarding claim 19 Schlesinger in view of Kim renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 16. Schlesinger does not disclose wherein, in determining the change stop, any one of a preset dynamic stop within a predetermined distance to the requested change stop or a dynamic stop adaptively selected for a plurality of requested change stops is determined based on change stop information in the change request.
Hochberg in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in determining the change stop, any one of a preset dynamic stop within a predetermined distance to the requested change stop or a dynamic stop adaptively selected for a plurality of requested change stops is determined based on change stop information in the change request (see at least [0123]; “In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server adjusts the selection of the pick-up location based on filtering results if potential assignment vehicles or vice versa. The two selection processes can complement each other to reach one or more optimal combinations. In various embodiments, the ridesharing management server assigns a pick-up location that is along a main street that an assigned vehicle can easily locate and/or at a location which that does not require an assign vehicle to take a U-turn. In cases where there are one or more other users in the vehicle, the ridesharing management server 150 can assign a pick-up location close to the vehicle’s next assigned drop-off and/or on a side street that the vehicle has to ride through for riders already in the vehicles,” and [0136]; “In some embodiments, where the first user has not been picked up yet, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at substantially the same location as the first pick-up location, for example, half a block away, or 100 meters away from the first pick-up location. This way, the vehicle may pick up both users at about the same time at substantially the same location, to, for example, improve service efficiency. In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at a substantially the same location as the first drop-off location, wherein the vehicle may drop off the first user, and pick up the second user at about the same time, without substantial extra travelling. In some embodiments, the second drop-off location is set at substantially the same location as the first drop off location, such that the vehicle may drop off multiple users at the same time or substantially the same time),” a dynamic stop is adaptively determined based on the destination and pick-up requests of multiple users using the rideshare).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger as modified by Kim with the dynamic pick-up/drop-off of Hochberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving service efficiency of rideshare vehicles (see at least Hochberg; [0136]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Kim and Hochberg, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of US-20190297450 (hereinafter, “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 7 Schlesinger in view of Kim and Hochberg renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Hochberg in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining the dynamic stop between the plurality of requested change stops comprises determining the dynamic stop between the change stops by generating change group information by grouping a plurality of change stops within a predetermined distance range (see at least [0123]; “In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server adjusts the selection of the pick-up location based on filtering results if potential assignment vehicles or vice versa. The two selection processes can complement each other to reach one or more optimal combinations. In various embodiments, the ridesharing management server assigns a pick-up location that is along a main street that an assigned vehicle can easily locate and/or at a location which that does not require an assign vehicle to take a U-turn. In cases where there are one or more other users in the vehicle, the ridesharing management server 150 can assign a pick-up location close to the vehicle’s next assigned drop-off and/or on a side street that the vehicle has to ride through for riders already in the vehicles,” and [0136]; “In some embodiments, where the first user has not been picked up yet, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at substantially the same location as the first pick-up location, for example, half a block away, or 100 meters away from the first pick-up location. This way, the vehicle may pick up both users at about the same time at substantially the same location, to, for example, improve service efficiency. In some embodiments, the ridesharing management server sets the second pick-up location at a substantially the same location as the first drop-off location, wherein the vehicle may drop off the first user, and pick up the second user at about the same time, without substantial extra travelling. In some embodiments, the second drop-off location is set at substantially the same location as the first drop off location, such that the vehicle may drop off multiple users at the same time or substantially the same time),” a dynamic stop is adaptively determined based on the destination and pick-up requests of multiple users using the rideshare within a predetermined distance range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Kim with the dynamic pick-up/drop-off of Hochberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving service efficiency of rideshare vehicles (see at least Hochberg; [0136]).
Schlesinger in view of Kim and Hochberg, does not teach applying a weight which gradually decreases from change group information of a maximum request to change group information of a minimum request.
Hwang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches applying a weight which gradually decreases from change group information of a maximum request to change group information of a minimum request (Examiner note; Applicant defines the maximum request as the change stop having the most requests to stop at the location, while the minimum request is the change request having the least requests to stop at the location)(see at least [0024] “the transportation matching system may identify correlations such as a number of times the requester computing device has previously been picked up as the device-based location, a number of times other requestor computing devices have previously been picked-up at the device-based location, and a number of times the device-based location has been a destination location in other transportation requests. For each identified correlation, the transportation matching system can assign a value to the correlation, weight the value based on the a strength of the correlation, and add the weight to the confidence score,” and [0051]; “the transportation matching system 102 can add a heavier weight if the requestor computing device 106a has sent multiple transportation requests including device-based location as the pickup location and a lighter weight if the requestor computing device 106a has sent transportation requests including the device-based location only twice,” it is well-known in the field to apply a higher weight to the most popular choice) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger as modified by Kim and Hochberg with the pickup optimization of Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of considering how often a location has been selected when determining pick-up location (see at least Hwang; [0002]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesinger in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20220194504 (hereinafter, “Pellerey”).
Regarding claim 15 Schlesinger in view of Kim renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Kim discloses a scheduled arrival time between the route mobility device and the passenger is within a predetermined time (see at least [Col. 21, lines 43-52]; “If the passenger does not get in the autonomous driving vehicle within a predetermined time, for example starting from a point in time at which the autonomous driving vehicle 840 arrives at the first destination, then the autonomous driving vehicle 840 can transmit information such as a “reservation cancel request,” to the server 820,” the passenger must be able to arrive at the designated stop within a predetermined time period, while the passenger is stated as walking to this location, it would be obvious that the passenger could operate a shared mobility device such as a shared scooter or bicycle to reach the designated destination).
Kim does not disclose after transmitting the change stop message, performing control such that a shared mobility device is returned to the change stop.
Pellerey, in the same field of endeavor, teaches after transmitting the change stop message, performing control such that a shared mobility device is returned to the change stop (see at least [0058]; “In one example, origination point 260 may be extremely congested or otherwise hard to access by a ride-share transit vehicle, which could prevent or significantly increase a wait time for the transportation requester or rider and a total trip time to arrive at destination 272. In such circumstances, a planned multimodal route may include directing the transportation requester or rider to walk and/or take a scooter/bike to an intermediate and less congested location to meet a reserved ride-share vehicle,” in this example the scooter/bike corresponds to Applicant’s shared mobility device, which is configured to take the ride requester to the designated meet-up spot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the dynamic route system of Schlesinger as modified by Kim with the multimodal transportation routing of Pellerey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing efficiency in getting a user to their requested destination (see at least [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/A.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666