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
The amendment filed 4/3/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-12, 14, and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the “number of pick-up point” being evaluated during the time cost calculation is exactly the number of actual stops the vehicle would make if that scheme is selected. Based on this assertion, the amendment to use “the number of the at least one target pick-up point” overcomes the art applied by Cheung for calculating the time cost, especially since Applicant argues that Cheung specifically applies a systemic limit on the search space.
Applicant is thanked for the clarifying amendments that help to define the claim scope and amendment. However, although Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 have been considered persuasive, they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: the amended claim language regarding "the number of the at least one target pick-up point" is not grammatically clear. Since the prior claim language establishes "at least one target pick-up point" the claim language would be better understood if written as "the number of target pick-up points", as this phrasing encompasses the claim intention of having one or more target pick-up points. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al., hereinafter Fujimoto (Document ID: US 20200175558 A1) in view of Brewington et al., hereinafter Brewington (Document ID: US 20220349719 A1), and further in view of Bai et al., hereinafter Bai (Document ID: US 20200327516 A1), and finally in view of Balva (Document ID: US 20210140777 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Fujimoto teaches a computer-implemented method, an electronic device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions comprising:
obtaining, by a server (ridesharing management device 300), a location of a vehicle driver's terminal device, a location of a first passenger's terminal device and a location of a second passenger's terminal device and a location of a destination uploaded to the server by a first passenger's terminal device and a second passenger's terminal device (see at least P [0058]: “navigation device” for the vehicle terminal, see as well P [0019]: “communicate with a plurality of terminal devices used by a plurality of users; acquire pick-up requests of the plurality of users in which a use condition including at least a desired pick-up place is defined”. Additionally, see at least FIG. 8 for a diagram of location destination D awareness. Lastly, see P [0054]: “The terminal device 100 acquires positional information specified by a position specifier of the terminal device 100 and transmits a user ID and positional information of the terminal device 100 at a predetermined interval to the ridesharing management device 300”);
determining, by the server, a plurality of candidate pick-up points according to the location of the first passenger's terminal device and the location of the second passenger's terminal device, comprising (see at least FIG. 8 wherein candidate pick-up places P1 to P3 are defined according to the locations of users U1 to U5):
Fujimoto teaches in P [0080] defining candidate pick-up places “which are within a predetermined distance from the desired boarding place of the priority user which is a standard.” Additionally in P [0081] a path for each user to the candidate places is determined in order to determine the movement time for each user to the candidate pick-up place. Finally, in at least P [0102] Fujimoto teaches instructing a user about a navigation path to reach the pick-up place. But Fujimoto does not explicitly teach
determining, from a map stored in a database, a sub-navigation path from the location of the first passenger's terminal device to the location of the second passenger's terminal device;
determining a plurality of path locations from the sub-navigation path; and
querying, for each of the plurality of path locations, a plurality of pre-marked landmarks in the map within a preset distance range of this path location as the plurality of candidate pick- up points;
Instead, Brewington, whose invention pertains to an interactive landmark localization system for users, teaches in P [0051] a “server device 14 may receive requests from the client devices 12 for navigating multiple users to a meeting location.” In P [0051] “the server device 14 may receive requests from the client devices 12 for navigating multiple users to a meeting location.” In this case and in P [0072] the meeting location can be where the first user is or somewhere proximate to the first user. Then in P [0053] a plurality of path locations are identified as candidate landmarks, and after being queried, the pre marked landmarks are assigned a score for their viability as a selected landmark.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the candidate pick up point determination process of Fujimoto with the landmark based candidate pickup place determination of Brewington in order to utilize known landmarks for helping to guide users and provide them with easy to recognize meeting points. According to Brewington in P [0004]-[0007] the navigation method helps mitigates the fact that some landmarks look different depending on the time of day, or that users struggle to follow absolute directions like "North" or "South" without additional assistance.
Fujimoto additionally teaches determining, by the server, at least one target pick-up point from the plurality of candidate pick-up points, in such a manner that a total time cost is minimized when the first passenger's terminal device and the second passenger's terminal device are picked up from a respective target pick-up point in the at least one target pick-up point in at least P [0086]: “When the users U1 to U5 are grouped, a cost is calculated at each of candidate pick-up places P1 to P3 and the candidate pick-up place P1 with the minimum cost is determined as a pick-up place”). Note that the cost of Fujimoto in P [0081] is associated more closely with distance and time considerations for each of the users, but Fujimoto also teaches in P [0090]-[0093] that a movement cost of the vehicle is minimized by reducing the wait time of the vehicle. In P [0096] a pick-up place can be further modified to optimize for overall time based on a determination that users should start moving towards the destination for the vehicle to pick them up. Fujimoto and Brewington thus do not explicitly teach that the total time cost to be minimized is from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination.
Instead, Bai, whose invention pertains to a system and method for a cost-sharing transportation service, teaches in at least P [0058] that the “pick-up location 124 may be selected at places that minimizes the distance, driving time, or traffic for driver 104 to reach pick-up location 124 from its current location.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user based cost analysis of Fujimoto and Brewington with the cost analysis that minimizes driving time and distance for the driver of Bai in order to ensure that all passengers and vehicles meet at the pick-up location in a timely manner, and ensuring that the "driver 104 does not have to make a U-turn other complicated or time-consuming routes." (Bai P [0058]).
Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai are not explicitly mentioning minimizing the time to the destination, but in view of the modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cost analysis for determination of the pick-up point of Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai with a consideration of the final destination location in order to execute a design choice that minimizes the driver's total driving time and to facilitate a convenient pick-up location for users that avoids complicated or time-consuming routes. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the methods of Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai would utilize known methods of route planning to minimize time to the destination in order to create a more rapid ridesharing system and to provide convenience to passengers.
Moreover, Fujimoto teaches
determining, by the server, a first navigation path for the vehicle driver's terminal device that is viewable on the vehicle driver's terminal device based on at least a location of the at least one target pick-up point (see at least P [0092] “the vehicle specifier 228 transmits an instruction to head for the pick-up place to the vehicle 200 (step S210)”, based on the location of the at least one target pick-up point. See also P [0147]: “the communicator 310 may communicate with a terminal device of a driver of the vehicle 200”).
wherein the determining, by the server, a plurality of candidate pick-up points according to the location of the first passenger's terminal device and the location of the second passenger's terminal device further comprises: in response to a distance between the location of the first passenger's terminal device and the location of the second passenger's terminal device is smaller than a second threshold, determining the plurality of candidate pick-up points based on a first threshold, and wherein a distance between a location of each of the plurality of candidate pick-up points and the location of the first passenger's terminal device is smaller than the first threshold, and a distance between the location of each of the plurality of candidate pick-up points and the location of the second passenger's terminal device is smaller than the first threshold (see at least FIGs. 10-12 and P [0094]-[0099] which describe determining a plurality of candidate pickup points through a correction procedure that actively monitors the location of each passenger terminal device and the candidate pick-up points. More specifically, a second threshold is established as the distance between the terminal devices of the users; in the scene of FIG. 12 users U1, U2, U4, and U5 are all together and U3 is not with them. Users U1, U2, U4, and U5 are all within a first threshold distance to P1, and therefore their candidate pick-up place is not corrected. But the distance between U3 and P1 is not within the first threshold, since U3 is closer to P3, and U3 is thus not grouped and is not directed to travel to P1.),
Fujimoto teaches in P [0080]-[0081] “The candidate pick-up places are, for example, pick-up places which are within a predetermined distance from the desired boarding place of the priority user which is a standard.” P [0102] also establishes that the movement cost factors in “movement times, movement distances, or movement methods” of users and the vehicle. Therefore, Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai teach that the total time cost is determined based on the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device, the location of the destination, the location of the first passenger's terminal device, the location of the second passenger's terminal device, and the location of the at least one target pick-up point. But Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai are not explicitly including the number of the at least one target pick-up point as part of the total time cost.
Instead, Balva, whose invention pertains to a transportation management service, teaches in at least P [0029] that “For a number of given origination and destination locations over a given period of time, the objective function can be applied and each proposed routing solution given a score, such as an optimized route score, which can be used to select the optimal routing solution.” In P [0033] it is clear that the “total number of stops” is a consideration for the rideshare planning, that is to say the number of stops is a variable to optimize the final solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cost analysis for determination of a pickup point of Fujimoto, Brewington, and Bai with the objective function scoring of Balva in order to balance convenience and optimal routing for user pickup as in P [0031] of Balva. The system aims to avoid "backtracking or additional stops at a prior location along the route" in P [0033] to avoid frustrating other users.
Regarding claim 12 specifically, Fujimoto additionally teaches:
at least one processor (see “processor” in at least P [0068]); and
a memory in communication connection with the at least one processor (storage 380), wherein
the memory stores instructions that can be executed by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, such that the at least one processor can execute the operations above (see at least P [0068]: “The acquirer 320 and the service manager 330 are realized, for example, when a processor such as a CPU executes a program (software) stored in the storage 380”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, and Fujimoto further teaches that determining the plurality of candidate pick-up points according to the location of the first passenger's terminal device and the location of the second passenger's terminal device comprises:
determining a candidate region covering the location of the first passenger's terminal device and the location of the second passenger's terminal device (see at least FIG. 8 wherein the candidate region is determined as the zone with radius d1, including a number of users); and
Fujimoto teaches querying a plurality of pick-up places in the candidate region in P [0070]: “The desired boarding place may be any place or may be a preset pick-up place included in map information 386 to be described below.” See also P [0080]: “The candidate pick-up places are, for example, pick-up places which are within a predetermined distance from the desired boarding place of the priority user which is a standard.” But Fujimoto thus does not explicitly teach that the possible pick-up places are pre-marked landmarks.
Instead, Brewington teaches in P [0009] “the interactive landmark localization system may retrieve the locations, orientations, sizes, etc., of landmarks from a landmark database.”, and in P [0010] “a pickup location using landmarks.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range with multiple pick-up place options of Fujimoto with the landmark as a pick-up place of Brewington in order to exercise a design choice to provide a well-known and easily recognizable landmark as the pick-up place.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, and Fujimoto further teaches in P [0079] a step of determining which users are in sufficient proximity to a priority user to be included as part of the pick-up place determination. But Fujimoto and Brewington do not explicitly teach that the second threshold is determined based on a product of:
a navigation distance from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination; and
a predetermined ratio.
Instead Bai teaches in at least P [0033] “In some embodiments, after user 102 is within a predetermined distance to destination 132, no additional pick-up of co-rider(s) may be permitted. In some embodiment, the ratio between the distance to destination 132 and the total distance of the ride may be used as an indicator whether picking-up a new co-rider is permitted”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of whether to include other users in a ride share event of Fujimoto and Brewington with the distance to destination and passenger distance ratio of Bai in order to evaluate a distance ratio for determining when shared trips are appropriate, and to determine which users should be sharing a ride, as in Bai P [0033].
Regarding claims 7 and 18, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 1 and the electronic device according to claim 12, and Fujimoto further teaches
the total time cost comprises a vehicle driver sub-cost and a passenger sub-cost (see at least P [0101] which establishes a vehicle driver sub-cost : “the vehicle 200 with a low cost spent to pick up the user U2”, in addition to the passenger sub cost of P [0081].); and
for each of the plurality of candidate pick-up points:
the vehicle driver sub-cost is determined based on the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device, the location of the destination and a location of the candidate pick-up point (see at least P [0123] wherein the vehicle sub-cost is determined based on the location of the vehicle, a location of the pick-up place, a location of the passenger, and the location of the destination. See also step S414 of FIG. 16), and
the passenger sub-cost is determined based on the locations of the first passenger's terminal device and the second passenger's terminal device and a location of the candidate pick-up point (see at least P [0081] wherein the cost deriver 334 derives a cost for each user based on their locations and the candidate pick-up place locations).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, and Fujimoto further teaches that
the determining the first navigation path for the vehicle driver's terminal device based on at least the location of the at least one target pick- up point comprises:
determining, for the vehicle driver's terminal device, the first navigation path from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination via the location of the at least one target pick-up point (see at least P [0058]: “The navigation control device 236 determines a route from the position of the vehicle 200 positioned by the GNSS receiver 234 to a destination designated using the HMI 232 with reference to the navigation map… The route may include information regarding a stopping place and a target time of arrival to allow a user to get into or get out of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, and Fujimoto further teaches that
determining a second navigation path for at least one of the first passenger's terminal device and the second passenger's terminal device based on at least the location of the at least one target pick-up point (see at least P [0102]: “the positional information of the user U2 and transmits the determined pick-up place P2 to the terminal device 100 of the user U2 and the vehicle 200. At this time, the ridesharing management device 300 may transmit information indicating a route from the current place of the user U2 to the determined pick-up place P2 to the terminal device 100 of the user U2.”).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Brewington, Bai, and Balva, and further in view of Li et al., hereinafter Li (NPL Reference: Benefits of Short-Distance Walking and Fast-Route Scheduling in Public Vehicle Service)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 7 and the electronic device according to claim 18, and Fujimoto further teaches in P [0123] as estimation of the driving time and plan for the vehicle to travel to the destination via the candidate pick-up point. But Fujimoto, Brewington, Bai, and Balva do not explicitly teach that the vehicle driver sub-cost is a difference between
a navigation distance from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination via the location of the candidate pick-up point and a reference navigation distance from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination; and
Instead, Li, whose work pertains to encouraging users to walk to a common pick-up location for carpool or ride-sharing systems, teaches a system for cost analysis that includes a passenger sub-cost and a vehicle driver sub cost. Specifically, on Page 3710 formula (1) is shown with the objective “to minimize the sum of total driving time of all vehicles”, and section V. further develops the idea that “the problem is to insert the pick-up and drop-off location of every passenger into the existing routes”. This problem statement demonstrates that the vehicle cost consists of a comparison between a navigation distance from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination via the location of the candidate pick-up point and a reference navigation distance from the location of the vehicle driver's terminal device to the location of the destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driving minimization and vehicle cost of Fujimoto, Brewington, Bai, and Balva with the detour minimization and route-planning comparison of Li in order to implement a pick-up and drop-off location planning method that best minimizes travel times for each vehicle of the rideshare service.
Finally, Fujimoto does teach that
the passenger sub-cost is a sum of a navigation distance from the location of the first passenger's terminal device to the location of the candidate pick-up point and a navigation distance from the location of the second passenger's terminal device to the location of the candidate pick-up point (see at least P [0081] for the cost sum analysis for the passenger sub-cost).
Regarding claims 9, modified Fujimoto teaches the method according to claim 7, and Fujimoto further teaches cost analysis for vehicles and passengers, including for a potential priority user in P [0077] as well as weighting a particular cost parameter in P [0082]. But Fujimoto, Brewington, Bai, and Balva do not explicitly teach that
the total time cost is determined by the following equation:
K = α • Kd + β • Kp + γ • N
wherein K is the total time cost, Kd is the vehicle driver sub-cost, Kp is the passenger sub- cost, N is the number of the at least one target pick-up point, α is a weight of the vehicle driver sub- cost, β is a weight of the passenger sub-cost and γ is a weight of the at least one target pick-up point.
Instead Li teaches on Page 3710 a system of equations for defining the “objective…to minimize
the sum of total driving time of all vehicles”. The system of Li considers sub costs for passengers, for vehicles, and for individual pick-up and drop-off locations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the priority user consideration and cost analysis of Fujimoto, Brewington, Bai, and Balva with the system of equations for minimizing total driving time of Li in order to comprehensively account for each passenger, vehicle, and candidate location for pick-up and drop-off when aiming to find the shortest detour time in a ride-share system.
Conclusion
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.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20250389545 A1
Invention pertains to identifying a venue of interest across multiple requests for pick up and drop off requests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights