DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on December 2nd , 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis et al. (US 2018/0350161) in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0194415).
Regarding claim 1, Wallis teaches a method comprising:
sending first status information of a first vehicle (Para. [0058]… server 54 will generate an output corresponding to this available status (i.e., a first output)…this first
output is subsequently communicated to vehicle controls device 222);
receiving, in response to the first status information, indication information instructing a second vehicle to execute a first task (Para. [0058]… first output includes appropriately formatted instructions designed to instruct controls device 222 to command vehicle 12 to reposition itself so as to perform another rideshare system task), wherein the first task is associated with second status information of the second vehicle (Para. [0058]…when server 54 otherwise determines the vehicle resources are below/do not meet a certain threshold requirement ( e.g., the SoC being below 40% charge), server 54 may provide a "non-available status" for vehicle 12. Server 54 may otherwise provide a "conservation-based status" for vehicle 12. As a result, regardless of which version of this "second status" has been provided, method 400 will move to step 440); and executing based on the indication information, the first task (Para. [0060]… second output may include appropriately formatted instructions designed to instruct controls device 222 to command vehicle 12 to reposition itself so as to replenish its vehicle resource to again meet the threshold requirement.)
Wallis fails to teach wherein the second status information indicates a first visible state of the second vehicle, and wherein the first visible state indicates whether the second vehicle appears online or offline to a third-party server.
However, Liu teaches wherein the second status information indicates a first visible state of the second vehicle, and wherein the first visible state indicates whether the second vehicle appears online or offline to a third-party server (Para. [0119]…the third party computing system 325 can be configured to manage the third party autonomous vehicles 315 (e.g., of the associated fleet, etc.). A third party computing system 325 can manage the vehicle service assignments, other vehicle tasks, dispatch, maintenance, online/offline status, etc. of its associated third party autonomous vehicles..)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle resource management system as taught by Wallis with the system for improved autonomous vehicle operation as taught by Liu to improve the
performance capabilities for an autonomous vehicle navigating a region (Liu, Para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wallis in view of Liu teach the method according of claim 1, wherein the first status information or the second status information comprises at least one of: an online state; a healthy state; a task-receivable state; a travelable state; a charging state; a remote control state; a charging-task state; or a second visible state of a third vehicle (Para. [0058]..whether the SoC for power source 218 is above or equal to forty percent ( 40%) charge (i.e., battery life); alternatively, whether the fuel tank has more than or equal to ¼ of a tank of remaining fuel. Server 54 will further provide an "available status" (i.e., a first status) for the vehicle when it is determined that the remaining vehicle resources in fact meet the designated threshold requirement.)
Regarding claim 3, Wallis in view of Liu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first task is
based on a first resource of the first vehicle and availability of the first resource, and wherein the first resource comprises at least one of: a charging pile location, a maintenance location, a parking location, or a work location (Para. [0060]… vehicle 12 can traverse itself to an available vehicle charge station ( charge hub) to recharge power source 218 such that it has an SoC of an optimized charge or one above at least the threshold requirement.)
Regarding claim 4, Wallis in view of Liu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first task is from a third party or a task reported the second vehicle (Para. [0031]… Mobile device 57 may also be configured to provide services according to a subscription agreement with a third-party facility.)
Regarding claim 5, Wallis in view of Liu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first task is a charging task, a parking task, or a work task (Para. [0060]…. second output may include appropriately formatted instructions designed to instruct controls device 222 to command vehicle 12 to reposition itself so as to replenish its vehicle resource to again meet the threshold requirement. For example, vehicle 12 can traverse itself to an available vehicle charge station ( charge hub) to recharge power source 218 such that it has an SoC of an optimized charge or one above at least the threshold requirement.)
Regarding claim 6, Wallis in view of Liu teach the method of claim 1, further comprising sending to a server, reported information after completing execution of the first task (Para. [0061]… after the vehicle resource has been deemed adequately replenished, vehicle 12 will transmit a resource data update to server 54. The updated resource data lets server 54 know vehicle 12 again has enough vehicle resources to adequately carry out a rideshare system task.
Regarding claim 7, Wallis in view of Liu teach an apparatus comprising: one or more memories configured to store programming instructions (electronic memory 40); and at least one processor coupled to the one or more memories (Para. [0035]) and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to:
acquire first status information of a first vehicle (please refer to rejection of claim 1); determine, based on the first status information and second status information associated with a first task, a second vehicle (Para. [0057-0060], wherein the second status information indicates a first visible state of the second vehicle, and wherein the first visible state indicates whether the second vehicle appears online or offline to a third-party server (please refer to rejection of claim 1); and
send to the second vehicle, indication information instructing the second vehicle to execute the first task (please refer to rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wallis in view of Liu teach the apparatus according of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the apparatus to determine the second status information from the first status information (Para. [0059]).
Regarding claims 9-12, please refer to the rejection of claims 2-5 which are commensurate in scope.
Regarding claim 13, Wallis in view of Liu teach the apparatus according of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions, to cause the apparatus to determine that the second vehicle is in an available state (Para. [0058]… Server 54 will further provide an "available status" (i.e., a first status) for the vehicle when it is determined that the remaining vehicle resources in fact meet the designated threshold requirement.)
Regarding claim 14, please refer to the rejection of claims 6, which is commensurate in scope.
Regarding claims 15-20, please refer to the rejection of claims 1-6 which are commensurate in scope.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666