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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are currently pending.
2. Claims 10-20 are canceled.
3. Claim 1, 21, and 31 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 21, 24-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200327811 A1) in view of Perez Barrera (US 20190385442 A1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches a method for guiding a user of an autonomous vehicle service to a vehicle associated with the autonomous vehicle service, the method comprising: deploying a vehicle assist drone… to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Smith: [0021] and [0034] Note that the use of wireless beacons that may be implemented on drones are deployed in locations in the environment of the user. The wireless beacons on the drones located in the environment of the user is equivalent to deploying the vehicle assistance drone to a location of the user.);
And emitting, from a user guidance device of the vehicle assist drone, an indicator to guide the user of the autonomous vehicle service to the vehicle (Smith: [0021], [0031], and [0089] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, emitting an indicator from a user guidance device of the vehicle assistance drone is equivalent to the wireless beacons transmitting wireless signals to the user computing device for displaying a direction.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach deploying a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle… and authenticating, by the vehicle assist drone, the user of the autonomous vehicle service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Perez Barrera teaches deploying a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0020]);
And authenticating, by the vehicle assist drone, the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0021]).
Smith and Perez Barrera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to incorporate the teachings of Perez Barrera to deploy a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle and authenticate the user of the autonomous vehicle service because it provides the benefit of accurately navigating a user to a vehicle pickup location. This reduces the difficulty a user may experience trying to find a vehicle location of pickup.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Smith teaches the indicator is an arrow or line (Smith: [0082] and [0089]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Smith teaches the indicator is a sound (Smith: [0089]).
11. Regarding Claim 5, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Perez Barrera teaches the vehicle assist drone authenticates the user through communication with a user device associated with the user (Perez Barrera: [0021] and [0059]).
12. Regarding Claim 6, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Smith teaches the vehicle assist drone is an aerial drone (Smith: [0034]).
13. Regarding Claim 7, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Smith teaches the indicator is an arrow or line that is projected on the ground by the vehicle assist drone (Smith: [0082] and [0089] Note that providing an indicator by the vehicle assist drone is equivalent to the user computing device 112 receiving signals from the wireless beacons (vehicle assist drone). Also, note that the user computing device 112 projects the arrow on the ground on the map displayed on the device (Fig. 4).).
14. Regarding Claim 8, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Smith teaches the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0028]).
15. Regarding Claim 9, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Smith teaches the vehicle assist drone is an autonomous drone that navigates without navigation instructions from the vehicle (Smith: [0034]).
16. Regarding Claim 21, Smith teaches a method for guiding a user of an autonomous vehicle service, the method comprising: deploying a vehicle assist drone… to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Smith: [0021] and [0034] Note that the use of wireless beacons that may be implemented on drones are deployed in locations in the environment of the user. The wireless beacons on the drones located in the environment of the user is equivalent to deploying the vehicle assistance drone to a location of the user.);
Determining a path from the location of the user to a location of an autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0028] and [0031]);
And emitting, from a user guidance device of the vehicle assist drone, an indicator to guide the user to the autonomous vehicle based on the determined path (Smith: [0021], [0031], and [0089] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, emitting an indicator from a user guidance device of the vehicle assistance drone is equivalent to the wireless beacons transmitting wireless signals to the user computing device for displaying a direction.).
Smith fails to explicitly teach deploying a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle… and authenticating, by the vehicle assist drone, the user of the autonomous vehicle service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Perez Barrera teaches deploying a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0020]);
And authenticating, by the vehicle assist drone, the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0021]).
Smith and Perez Barrera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to incorporate the teachings of Perez Barrera to deploy a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle and authenticate the user of the autonomous vehicle service because it provides the benefit of accurately navigating a user to a vehicle pickup location. This reduces the difficulty a user may experience trying to find a vehicle location of pickup.
17. Regarding Claim 24, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Smith teaches the autonomous vehicle controls navigation of the vehicle assist drone (Smith: [0033] Note that the autonomous vehicle controls the navigation of the vehicle assist drone because the wireless beacons (drones) are configured to move to the autonomous vehicle stopping location.).
19. Regarding Claim 25, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Smith teaches the vehicle assist drone is an autonomous drone that navigates without navigation instructions from the autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0034]).
19. Regarding Claim 26, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Smith teaches the vehicle assist drone navigates along the determined path to the location of the autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0033] and [0034] Note that navigating along the determined path to the location of the autonomous vehicle is equivalent to the dynamic wireless beacon having a one-to-one correlation with a stopping location (autonomous vehicle).).
20. Regarding Claim 27, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 26, and further, Smith teaches the indicator is a sound, the method further comprising: adjusting the sound based on a distance between the user and the autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0089] Note that Smith provides verbal/audio instructions to guide the user until it gets to a stopping location. Therefore, the sound is adjusted based on the distance between the user and autonomous vehicle being greater than zero.).
21. Regarding Claim 28, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 27, and further, Smith teaches providing, by the vehicle assist drone, a second indicator to guide the user to the autonomous vehicle, wherein the second indicator is a visual representation of the sound (Smith: [0089] Note that textual directions or a map showing the location is equivalent to the second indicator that is a visual representation to guide the user to the autonomous vehicle. Also, note that providing an indicator by the vehicle assist drone is equivalent to the user computing device 112 receiving signals from the wireless beacons (vehicle assist drone).).
22. Regarding Claim 31, Smith teaches a system for guiding a user of an autonomous vehicle service, the system comprising: an autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0028]);
And a vehicle assist drone, the vehicle assist drone having: a main body, a propulsion assembly, a sensor suite including one or more sensors to sense an environment and generate sensor data, a user guidance device, and an onboard controller configured to (Smith: [0021], [0034], and [0037] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a drone has a main body, propulsion assembly, and controller for in order for the drone to fly and operate.):
And emit, from the user guidance device, an indicator to guide the user of the autonomous vehicle service to the autonomous vehicle (Smith: [0021], [0031], and [0089] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, emitting an indicator from a user guidance device of the vehicle assistance drone is equivalent to the wireless beacons transmitting wireless signals to the user computing device for displaying a direction.).
Smith does not explicitly teach to navigate the vehicle assist drone from the autonomous vehicle to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service, and authenticate the user of the autonomous vehicle service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Perez Barrera teaches to navigate the vehicle assist drone from the autonomous vehicle to a location of the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0020]),
And authenticate the user of the autonomous vehicle service (Perez Barrera: [0021]).
Smith and Perez Barrera are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to incorporate the teachings of Perez Barrera to deploy a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle and authenticate the user of the autonomous vehicle service because it provides the benefit of accurately navigating a user to a vehicle pickup location. This reduces the difficulty a user may experience trying to find a vehicle location of pickup.
23. Claims 4 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200327811 A1), in view of Perez Barrera (US 20190385442 A1), and in further view of Schumann (US 20240043138 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 4, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Smith and Perez Barrera fail to explicitly teach the vehicle includes a vehicle assist drone housing and the vehicle assist drone housing can recharge a battery in the vehicle assist drone when the vehicle assist drone is coupled to the vehicle assist drone housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumann teaches the vehicle includes a vehicle assist drone housing and the vehicle assist drone housing can recharge a battery in the vehicle assist drone when the vehicle assist drone is coupled to the vehicle assist drone housing (Schumann: [0022] and [0058]).
Smith, Perez Barrera, and Schumann are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Perez Barrera to incorporate the teachings of Schumann to include a housing that can recharge a battery in the vehicle assist drone because it provides the benefit of increasing the lifespan of the vehicle assist drone. This provides the additional benefit of decreasing costs.
25. Regarding Claim 29, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Smith and Perez Barrera fail to explicitly teach determining, based on one or more light detectors of the vehicle assist drone, that the user needs additional lighting; and illuminating an area around the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumann teaches determining, based on one or more light detectors of the vehicle assist drone, that the user needs additional lighting; and illuminating an area around the user (Schumann: [0056], [0060], and [0065]).
Smith, Perez Barrera, and Schumann are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Perez Barrera to incorporate the teachings of Schumann to illuminate an area around the user because it provides the benefit of increasing the safety of the user in low-light situations
26. Regarding Claim 30, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Smith and Perez Barrera fail to explicitly teach providing a live video feed from the vehicle assist drone to a remote assistance operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumann teaches providing a live video feed from the vehicle assist drone to a remote assistance operator (Schumann: [0075]).
Smith, Perez Barrera, and Schumann are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Perez Barrera to incorporate the teachings of Schumann to include a live video feed from the vehicle assist drone to a remote assistance operator because it provides the benefit of controlling the drone remotely.
27. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200327811 A1), in view of Perez Barrera (US 20190385442 A1), and in further view of Baruch (US 20180029706 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 22, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Smith and Perez Barrera fail to explicitly teach identifying an obstacle around the user, wherein determining the path is based at least in part on the identified obstacle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baruch teaches identifying an obstacle around the user, wherein determining the path is based at least in part on the identified obstacle (Baruch: [0051] and [0054] Note that determining the path is equivalent to escorting the user past the danger (identified obstacle) posed by the object.).
Smith, Perez Barrera, and Baruch are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Perez Barrera to incorporate the teachings of Baruch to identify an obstacle around the user and determine the path based on the obstacle because it provides the benefit of avoiding a collision to prevent any injuries caused by the user/pedestrian colliding with another object.
29. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200327811 A1), in view of Perez Barrera (US 20190385442 A1), and in further view of Sun (US 20190227555 A1).
30. Regarding Claim 23, Smith and Perez Barrera remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Smith teaches determining, after the autonomous vehicle has arrived at a drop off location, a second path from the drop off location to a destination location of the user (Smith: [0017] and [0086]).
Smith fails to explicitly teach providing, by the vehicle assist drone, a second indicator to guide the user from the drop off location to the destination location based on the determined second path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches determining, after the autonomous vehicle has arrived at a drop off location, a second path from the drop off location to a destination location of the user; and providing, by the vehicle assist drone, a second indicator to guide the user from the drop off location to the destination location based on the determined second path (Sun: [0044] and [0079]).
Smith, Perez Barrera, and Sun are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith and Perez Barrera to incorporate the teachings of Sun to have a second indicator to guide the user from the drop off location to a destination because it provides the benefit of increasing the safety along the route for the passengers and vehicle. The vehicle assist drone provides warning to the autonomous vehicle to avoid collisions with obstacles that may be in the road ahead of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9 and 21-31 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. Perez Barrera (US 20190385442 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of deploying a vehicle assist drone from the vehicle and authenticating the user of the autonomous vehicle service by the vehicle assist drone in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0020] and [0021]. Perez Barrera teaches to deploy a UAV to identify a requesting user and navigates the user to a vehicle pickup location.
32. The cited references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
33. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
34. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663