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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Definitions
Applicant’s Specification provides definitions for “computer program product” and “storage device” ([0017]). In particular, Applicant defines a “storage device” as “any tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by a computer processor” ([0017]) and further clarifies that “[a] computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” ([0017]). Therefore, a 101 rejection is not raised for claims 8-14. However, to improve clarity of the claim language, Applicant is advised to recite “non-transitory” computer-readable storage medium in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elvanoglu (US 2020/0363216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Elvanoglu teaches a method for utilizing augmented reality for positioning vehicles (FIGS. 6-8 and [0100-0102] and [0115-0119]), the method comprising:
enabling a user to visualize, by way of an augmented reality device, a desired position of a vehicle selected to arrive at a designated pickup spot (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102]: a user is able to visualize via augmented reality device/requestor computing device 602, a desired position, as indicated by augmented reality element 606, of a vehicle selected to arrive at a designated pickup spot corresponding to augmented reality element 606; FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], acts 816 and 818 of FIG. 8 and [0116]: continuing the example of FIG. 6, note how the user visualizes the desired position represented by the corresponding augmented reality element 708 and augmented reality element 810);
documenting the desired position (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102]: the desired position is documented in that the transportation matching system 104 determines the desired position at which the transportation matching system 104 further displays an augmented reality element, like augmented reality element 606. Additionally, the desired position is documented based on the requestor’s selection with an augmented reality element; [0107], FIG. 8 and [0116-0117]: additionally or alternatively, the desired position is documented by the transportation matching system 104 based on the requestor moving towards the desired position. As seen at act 818, “upon detecting that the current location 812 of the requestor computing device 802 is within the threshold proximity 808, the transportation matching system 104 can send a transportation request to a transportation provider in act 814” as supported in [0117]. Thus documentation of the desired position may be this detection); and
communicating the desired position to a ride-hailing service to enable the vehicle to be placed in accordance with the desired position upon arriving at the designated pickup spot (FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], FIG. 8 and [0114-0119], FIG. 9 and [0127-0130]: the desired position, represented as augmented reality element 708 which corresponds to the augmented reality element 606 of FIG. 6, is communicated to a ride-hailing service, as seen in act 814. This enables the vehicle to be placed in accordance with the desired position upon arriving at the designated pickup spot indicated by augmented reality element 708 in FIG. 7, augmented reality element 810 in FIG. 8, and augmented reality element 906 in FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Elvanoglu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the desired position includes at least one of a location and orientation of the vehicle (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102], FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], FIG. 8 and [0114-0119], FIG. 9 and [0127-0130]: the desired position shown by augmented reality element 708 in FIG. 7, augmented reality element 810 in FIG. 8, and augmented reality element 906 in FIG. 9 includes at least a location of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Elvanoglu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein visualizing the desired position comprises visualizing the desired position within an environment surrounding the pickup spot (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102], FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], FIG. 8 and [0114-0119], FIG. 9 and [0127-0130]: the desired position is visualized within an environment surrounding the pickup spot).
Regarding claim 6, Elvanoglu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein visualizing the desired position comprises visualizing the desired position of a specific make and model of the vehicle (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102], FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], FIG. 8 and [0114-0119], FIG. 9 and [0127-0130]: the desired position shown by augmented reality element 708 in FIG. 7, augmented reality element 810 in FIG. 8, and augmented reality element 906 in FIG. 9 allows visualization of the desired position of the vehicle, which inherently has a specific make and model; [0037], [0064], [0077], [0081-0082], [0084], and [0105]: vehicle type is considered).
Regarding claim 7, Elvanoglu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein visualizing the desired position comprises visualizing the desired position at or near a time of booking the vehicle (FIG. 6 and [0100-0102], FIG. 7 and [0108-0114], FIG. 8 and [0114-0119], FIG. 9 and [0127-0130]: visualizing the desired position occurs at or near a time of booking the vehicle).
Regarding claims 8-10, 13, and 14, the claims recite a computer program product for utilizing augmented reality for positioning vehicles, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having computer-usable program code embodied therein, the computer-usable program code configured to perform the following when executed by at least one processor (FIG. 11 and [0140-0143], [0151-0155]) limitations corresponding to the method of claims 1-3, 6, and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 20, the claims recite a system for utilizing augmented reality for positioning vehicles, the system comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory device operably coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions for execution on the at least one processor (FIG. 11 and [0140-0143], [0151-0153]), the instructions causing the at least one processor to perform limitations corresponding to the method of claims 1-3 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elvanoglu (US 2020/0363216 A1), in view of Taveira et al. (US 2022/0221867 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Elvanoglu teaches the method of claim 1. Elvanoglu does not explicitly teach wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading passengers into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot.
Taveira teaches wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading passengers into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot ([0131] and [0143]: for example, the desired position is selected to optimize loading passengers, such as passengers with a physical handicap or limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elvanoglu by incorporating the teachings of Taveira so as to include wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading passengers into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot. Doing so would accommodate passengers according to their physical condition and thus improve their safety of boarding the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Elvanoglu teaches the method of claim 1. Elvanoglu does not explicitly teach wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading cargo into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot.
Taveira teaches wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading cargo into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot ([0131] and [0143]: for example, the desired position is selected to optimize loading cargo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elvanoglu by incorporating the teachings of Taveira so as to include wherein the desired position is selected to optimize loading cargo into the vehicle at the designated pickup spot. Doing so would help ensure that passengers could adequately and safely load their cargo, thereby reducing the likelihood of damage to the cargo and the vehicle.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claims recite a computer program product corresponding to the method of claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the claims recite a system corresponding to the method of claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding claim 1, “Element 606 of the reference relates to a first transportation pickup location and not to the claimed desired position of a vehicle selected to arrive at a designated pickup spot… The cited elements relate to the pickup location of a passenger on a sidewalk and not to a desire to locate a vehicle on that sidewalk” (p. 6 and p. 8 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), turning to Elvanoglu’s FIGS. 6-8, a user can see a designated pickup spot corresponding to augmented reality (AR) elements 606, 708, and 810. Elvanoglu describes these AR elements as corresponding to “transportation pickup locations”. By allowing the user to see the designated pickup spot via the corresponding transportation pickup location, the user can visualize a desired position of a vehicle arriving at the designated pickup spot.
First, as a primary point, Applicant’s argument is based on the assumption that the pickup location solely corresponds to that of the passenger and not the vehicle. While not required for the mapping, for the sake of addressing Applicant’s argument, see Elvanoglu’s FIG. 9 and paragraph [0130] (FIG. 9 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated, the pickup location is actually also referenced by the vehicle to get into the desired position. Note also how the passenger 110a is adjacent to the pickup location marked by AR element 906 and not exactly overlapping the pickup location. In this sense, Elvanoglu does not exclude the vehicle from arriving exactly at the designated pickup location. The pickup location as referenced in Elvanoglu may be interpreted as the designated pickup spot.
Second, as a supplementary point and assuming that the vehicle does not arrive exactly at the designated pickup spot, the Examiner further sets forth that “the vehicle arriving at the designated pickup spot” as claimed, interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require the vehicle to be exactly positioned at the designated pickup spot. For example, the vehicle may “arriv[e] at the designated pickup spot” when the vehicle is reasonably proximate to the pinpoint of the designated pickup spot. Using this interpretation, with the support of FIG. 9 above, both a passenger and a vehicle may “arrive at the designated pickup spot” despite not being at the same exact spot. Overall, claim 1 is not detailed in such a way that precludes the teachings of Elvanoglu.
In conclusion, independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 8 and 15, are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elvanoglu (US 2020/0363216 A1). The dependent claims accordingly remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 10347046 B2: augmented reality with virtual paths for vehicles
US 2017/0343375 A1: augmented reality guide to approach pick-up location
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171